BX 9A22 .G5 , ^ ^^^^
Girardeau, John L. 1825-
1898.
Calvinism and evangelical
Arminianism
CALVINISM
AND
EVANGELICAL ARMINIANISM:
COMPARED AS TO
ELECTION, REPROBATION, JUSTIFICATION,
AND
RELATED DOCTRINES.
BY
JOHN L/GIRARDEAU,
PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN COLUMBIA THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY, SOUTH CAROLINA.
COLUMBIA, S. C:
W. J. DUFFIE.
NEW YORK :
THE BAKER & TAYI^OR CO.
1890.
Copyright, 1890,
BY
JOHN L,. GIRARDEAU.
CONTENTS.
PART I.
PAGB
Introductory Remarks 9
Sect. I. Doctrine of Election Stated and Proved . 14
II. Doctrine of Reprobation Stated and Proved. 161
III. Objections from the Morai. Attributes of
God Answered 178
Preliminary Remarks 178
From Divine Justice 184
From Divine Goodness 274
From Divine Wisdom 325
From Divine Veracity 334
IV. Objections from the Moral, Agency of Man
Answered ..... 394
PART II.
Transitional, Observations 4^3
(3)
iv Contents.
PAGE
Sect. I. Cai^vinistic Doctrine of Justification Stated. 417
II. Ground of Justification 423
III. Nature of Justification 482
IV. . Condition of Justification 522
PREFACE
During the temporary occupation of the pulpit
of the First Presbyterian Church in this city, a few
years ago, some of the young members of that church
requested me to instruct a Bible-class, on Sabbath
nights, in the distinctive doctrines of the Calvinistic
faith. A large number were enrolled, and the un-
derstandincr was that the members of the class would
be entitled to a free interrogation of the instructor.
Unexpectedly, from the very first, a large promiscu-
ous congregation attended, and the liberty to ask
questions was used by outsiders, the design appearing
to be to start difficulties rather than to seek light,
and to convert the exercise into a debate. To avoid
this result, and to treat objections in a more logical
and orderly manner than was possible in extempor-
ized replies to the scattering fire of miscellaneous
inquiries, resort ere-long was had to written lectures.
Notwithstanding this change, the attendance and
the interest suffered no abatement, but rather in-
creased— a fact which seemed to militate against the
common opinion that doctrinal discussions would
prove dry and unacceptable to a popular audience.
The lectures, which were prepared not without pains-
taking labor, suggested the production of a formal
treatise on the subjects which had occupied all the
available time — namely. Election and Reprobation,
with special reference to the Evangelical Arminian
theology. This was done, and a discussion of the
(5)
vi Preface.
doctrine of Justification, in relation to that theology,
was added.
Another reason which conduced to the preparation
of this work was the conviction that there is room
for it. A distinguished writer has remarked, that
one who solicits the attention of the public by pub-
lishing a book should have something to say which
had not been said before. This opinion, no doubt,
needs qualification; but it applies, to some extent, in
the present instance. The ground covered by the
controversy between Calvinists and Evangelical Ar-
minians has not been completely occupied. John
Owen's "Display of Arminianism," and similar
works of the Puritan period, antedated the rise of
Evangelical Arminianism. Jonathan Edwards was a
contemporary of John Wesley. Principal Hill's com-
parison of Calvinism and Arminianism had reference
mainly to the Remonstrant system, as developed by
Episcopius and Curcellseus, Grotius and Limborch.
The same is, in a measure, true of Principal Cun-
ningham's comparative estimate of Calvinism and
Arminiauism in his Historical Theology. The com-
parative treatment of Calvinism and modern, Evan-
gelical Arminianism, contained in works on Syste-
matic Theology composed in recent times, are, how-
ever able, necessarily brief and somewhat meagre.
Such works as those of Green, Annan and Fairchild
hardly profess to be severely analytical or exhaustive
of any one topic. Dr. N. L. Rice's "God Sovereign
and Man Free," although a valuable discussion, is
brief, and leaves much to be said even in regard to
the question it handles. There seemed, therefore,
to be room for further discussion concerning the
Preface, vii
relative merits of Calvinism and Evangelical Armin-
ianisni, and it is hoped that the present attempt will
not be considered arrogant on the ground of being
superfluous.
Still another incentive leading to the production of
this volume has been furnished by the taunt ever and
anon issuing from Arminian sources that "Calvinism
is dying, ^' and the sneering intimation of recent
works — Dr. Miner Raymond's "Systematic Theol-
ogy," for example — that but few people of sense
now pretend to hold some of its peculiar and mon-
strous tenets. An honest indignation justifies the
disproof of such contemptuous allegations ; and, how-
ever inadequate may be the present defence of the
venerable theology thus belittled, it is prompted by
the profound conviction that the system known as
Calvinism expresses the faith of martyrs, confessors
and reformers, the faith in which the majority of
Christ's true people have lived and died ; that it is
the truth of God ; and that, instead of dying, it is as
immortal as that Inspired Word which liveth and
abideth forever. If opponents deem it to be dying,
and imagine that they can hasten its coveted disso-
lution, they will find its supposed dying-chamber an
arena of vigorous contest, and its fancied death-bed
a redoubt that neither they nor the powers of hell
can carry by storm.
The work does not assume to cover the whole field
of the controversy of which it treats, to discuss artic-
ulately all the distinctive views of the systems com-
pared. It is its purpose to bring out their radical
and controlling principles, in themselves and in tjieir
necessary connections, to confront them with each
viii Preface.
other, and to subject them to a searching examina-
tion.
I have endeavored to write in a calm and dispas-
sionate temper, consistent with sincere, brotherly
love to those of God's people from whose views I
differ ; and, in submitting the results of long reflec-
tion, embodied in this volume, to the judgment of
candid readers, I invoke for them a like calm and
dispassionate consideration.
The work is humbly committed to Him whose
truth it professes to vindicate, with the prayer that
He will deign to employ it for His glory and the
good of His Church. Especially would I be grate-
ful, if He would be pleased to use it for arresting,
at least in some degree, the tendency now manifested
on the part of some professed Calvinists seriously to
modify the doctrines of the Calvinistic Symbols.
C01.UMBIA, S. C. , Jan. 18^ i8go.
CALVINISM
AND
EVAN&ELICAL ARMINIANISM,
PART I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS,
Predestination, in the Scriptures and in theo-
logical treatises, has two senses — one wide or general,
the other narrow or special. In the wide or general
sense, it signifies the decrees of God, terminating
either efficiently or permissively on all beings, acts and
events. The universe, intelligent and unintellig-ent,
is its object. It is the plan in accordance with which
God creates and governs all finite beings, and all
their properties and actions. In the narrow or special
sense, it signifies the decrees of God, terminating on
the destinies of intelligent, moral beings — angels and
men. In a still more restricted sense, it signifies the
decrees of God terminating on the destinies of men.
In this last sense, predestination is, by Calvinistic
theologians, regarded as a generic decree including
under it Election and Reprobation as specific decrees:
(9)
lo Calvinism and Eva7igelical Arminianism.
the former predestinating some human beings, with-
out regard to their merit, to salvation, in order to the
glorificationof God's sovereign grace ; the latter fore-
ordaining some human beings, for their sin, to de-
struction, in order to the glorification of God's retri-
butive justice.
The design of the First Part of this discussion is
the exposition and defence of the Calvinistic doc-
trines of Election and Reprobation ; special reference
being had to the objections advanced against them
by the Evangelical Arminian Theology, which will
be put upon trial and summoned to answer for the
difficulties inherent in itself This special examina-
tion of that theology is warranted upon two grounds,
— first, because it proposes to found its proofs directly
upon the Scriptures, and is on that account the most
formidable, as it is the most obtrusive, assailant of
the Calvinistic scheme ; secondly, because there is a
demand in our own times for a careful consideration
of the Evangelical Arminian doctrines, as differing
in some respects from those of the Remonstrants, and
as now having had sufficient opportunity to develop
themselves into a coherent and peculiar theological
system, commanding the suffrages of a large section
of the Church of Christ. Did the present school of
Arminians precisely coincide in doctrine with that
earlier one which articulated its theology in opposi-
tion to the Synod of Dort, it might well be regarded
as a superfluous office to subject its views to a partic-
ular examination. But the systeui of Wesley and
Watson is not identical with that of Episcopius and
Limborch ; and the polemic treatises of the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries are not altogether
Introductory Remarks. ii
suited to meet the present phases of the Arminian
theology.
Ill addition to these considerations it deserves to be
noticed, that at the time of the Remonstrant contro-
versy the defenders of Calvinism swung between the
Supralapsarian and Sublapsarian methods of conceiv-
ing the divine decrees. Francis Junius, for instance,
in his discussion with James Arminius, on Predesti-
nation, endeavored to vindicate both these modes of
viewing the decrees as reducible to unity upon the
same doctrine. This placed him at a disadvantage
which was observed by the keen eye of his subtle
antagonist, and employed against him not without
considerable effect. And wdiile the Synod of Dort
was Sublapsarian, it so happened that the chief oppo-
nents of the Remonstrants were pronounced Supralap-
sarians ; as, for example, Gomarus, Voetius, Twisse,
and Perkins. The natural result was, that the type
of doctrine which the Arminian divines felt called
upon to attack was the Supralapsarian. To this day,
the objections urged by Arminians against the Cal-
vinistic doctrine of decrees are mainly directed against
the Supralapsarian and Necessitarian theories. But
it must be borne in mind that the doctrines of Cal-
vinism have been always more or less cast in the
mould of Sublapsarianism. They have had a definite
development, according to that type, in the Symbolic
P'ormularies of the Reformed Church, and in the
works of representative theologians. This frees the
Calvinist from the embarrassment resulting from the
attempt to defend differing and incongruous views of
the divine decrees, and gives him the advantage of
appealing to the Calvinistic standards, as being either
12 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism,
implicitly or explicitly Sublapsarian in their utter-
ances.
The charge has been frequently made that the Cal-
vinistic apologists of later times have modified the
severer aspects of their system under the pressure of
controversy. This is a mistake. It has arisen from
the persistent determination of Arminian writers to
take Supralapsarianism and Necessitarianism as sym-
bolic Calvinism. When, therefore, the true expo-
nents of Calvinism defend their system from another
point of view, they are twitted with compromising
the Calvinistic system. But surely the Calvinistic
Confessions and the views of the vast majority of
Calvinistic divines ought, by fair adversaries, to be
construed as representatives of the system. Did the
Calvinist treat the Wesleyan Arminian doctrines as
identical with the Remonstrant, would not the
blunder be exposed and the injustice resented?
It is not intended to imply that Arminians have
always correctly represented the position of the
Supralapsarians. On the contrary, the affirmation of
the latter, that God dooms men to punishment for
their sin^ has seldom had due consideration given it
by Arminian writers. This only makes the charge
of injustice in the conduct of the controversy all the
graver, since not only the views of Supralapsarians,
but their misapprehended views, are attributed by the
mass of Arminian controversialists to Sublapsarian
Calvinists.
In this discussion, the Sublapsarian view of the
divine decrees will be adhered to, under the convic-
tion that it is characteristic of the system of doctrine
stated in all of the Calvinistic Confessions which
Introductory Remarks. 13
speak definitely on the question, and maintained by
the great majority of Calvinistic theologians.
The treatment of the subject will be distributed
into the following sections: First, the doctrine of
Election, stated and proved ; Secondly, the doctrine
of Reprobation, stated and proved ; Thirdly, Objec-
tions to these doctrines, derived from the Moral At-
tributes of God, answered ; Fourthly, Objections
derived from the Moral Agency of man, answered.
SECTION I.
THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION STATED AND PROVED.
In order to secure clearness and to prevent mis-
apprehension in regard to the issues involved, state-
ments of the doctrine of election by the prominent
Calvinistic Confessions will be furnished, and also
representations of that doctrine from Evangelical
Arminian sources of high authority. The Calvinistic
doctrine will then be analyzed into its constituent
elements, their scriptural proofs exhibited, and the
questions between Calvinists and Evangelical Armin-
ians in regard to those points will be discussed.
The statement of the doctrine of election by the
Westminster Confession is as follows: "By the
decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some
men . . . are predestinated unto everlasting life.
"These men . . . thus predestinated . . . are par-
ticularly and unchangeably designed ; and their
number is so certain and definite that it cannot be
either increased or diminished.
"Those of mankind that are predestinated unto
life. God, before the foundation of the world was laid,
according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and
the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath
chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his
mere free grace and love, without any foresight of
(14)
Election Stated and Proved. 15
faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of
them, or any other thing in the creatnre, as condi-
tions, or canses moving him therennto ; and all to
the praise of his glorions grace.
"As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so
hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his
will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto. Where-
fore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are
redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith
in Christ by his Spirit working in due season ; are
justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power
through faith unto salvation."^
The Westminster Larger Catechism says: "God,
by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere
love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be mani-
fested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory;
and, in Christ, hath chosen some men to eternal life,
and the means thereof
"God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate
of sin and misery, into which they fell by the breach
of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant
of works ; but of his mere love and mercy delivereth
his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate
of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called
the covenant of grace. "
"The covenant of grace was made with Christ as
the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as
his seed." ^
The Westminster Shorter Catechism : "God, hav-
ing out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity,
elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a cov-
enant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of
^ Ch. III. Sec. iv. -^Questions 30, 31.
1 6 Calvi7iism and Evangelical Arminianism,
sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of
salvation by a Redeemer. ' ' ^
What follows is a part of the utterance of the Synod
of Dort : "The cause, or fault, of this unbelief" [i. e.
in Christ], "as of all other sins, is in no wise in God,
but in man. But faith in Jesus Christ, and salvation
through him, is the free gift of God.
"But whereas, in process of time, God bestoweth
faith on some, and not on others, this proceeds from
his eternal decree.
"Now, election is the unchangeable purpose of
God, by which, before the foundation of the world,
according to the most free pleasure of his will, and
of his mere grace, out of all mankind — fallen, through
their own fault, from their first integrity into sin and
destruction — he hath chosen in Christ unto salvation
a set number of certain men, neither better nor more
worthy than others, but lying in the common misery
with others ; which Christ also from all eternity he
appointed the Mediator, and head of all the elect, and
foundation of salvation. And so he decreed to give
them to him to be saved, and by his Word and Spirit
effectually to call and draw them to a communion
with him : that is, to give them a true faith in him,
to justify, sanctify, and finally glorify them, being
mightily kept in the communion of his Son, to the
demonstration of his mercy, and the praise of the
riches of his glorious grace.
"This said election was made, not upon foresight
of faith, and the obedience of faith, holiness, or of
any other good quality or disposition, as a cause or
condition before required in man to be chosen ; but
^ Quest. 20.
Election Stated and Proved. ij
unto faith, and the obedience of faith, holiness, etc.
And therefore election is the fountain of all saving
good, from whence faith, holiness, and the residue of
saving gifts, lastly everlasting life itself, do flow, as
the fruits and effects thereof.
''The true cause of this free election is the good
pleasure of God ; not consisting herein, that, from
among all possible means, he chose some certain
qualities, or actions, of men, as a condition of salva-
tion ; but herein, that out of the common multitude
of sinners he culled out to himself, for his own pecu-
liar" [possession] "some certain persons.
"And as God himself is most wise, unchangeable,
omniscient, and omnipotent, so the election made by
him can neither be interrupted nor changed, revoked
or disannulled, nor the elect cast away, nor their
number diminished." ^
The Second Helvetic Confession says: "God hath
from the beginning freely, and of his mere grace,
without any respect of men, predestinated or elected
the saints, whom he will save in Christ."^
The French Confession: "We believe that out of
this universal corruption and damnation, wherein by
nature all men are drowned, God did deliver and pre-
serve some, whom, by his eternal and immutable
counsel, of his own goodness and mercy, without
any respect of their works, he did choose in Christ
Jesus. . . . For some are not better than others, till
such time as the Lord doth make a difference, accord-
ing to that immutable counsel which he had decreed
^Judgment, Arts. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 : Hall's Harm. Prot. Conf.
' Ch. 10, Hall's Harm.
2
18 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
in Christ Jesus before the creation of the world :
neither was any man able by his own strength to
make an entrance for himself to that good, seeing that
of our nature we cannot have so much as on^ riglit
motion, affection, or thought, till God do freely pre-
vent us, and fashion us to uprightness/^ *
The Belgic Confession: ''We believe that God,
after that the whole offspring of Adam was cast head-
long into perdition and destruction, through the de-
fault of the first man, hath declared and shewed
himself to be such an one, as he is indeed ; namely,
both merciful and just : merciful, by delivering and
saving those from condemnation and from death,
whom, in his eternal counsel, of his own free good-
ness, he hath chosen in Jesus Christ our Lord, with-
out any regard at all to their works. ^^*
The Swiss Form of Agreement {Fomntla Consensus
Helvetica)', '' Before the foundations of the world
were laid, God, in Christ Jesus our Lord, formed an
eternal purpose, in which, out of the mere good
pleasure of his will, without any foresight of the merit
of works or of faith, unto the praise of his glorious
grace, he elected a certain and definite number of
men, in the same mass of corruption and lying in a
common blood, and so corrupt in sin, to be, in time,
brought to salvation through Christ the only Sponsor
and Mediator, and, through the merit of the same,
by the most powerful influence of the Holy Spirit re-
generating, to be effectually called, regenerated, and
endued with faith and repentance. And in such wise
indeed did God determine to illustrate his glory, that
he decreed, first to create man in integrity, then to
^Art. 12, Hall. "" Kx\.. i6/Hall.
Election Stated and Proved. 19
permit his fall, and finally to pity some from among
the fallen, and so to elect the same." ^
To these statements of the doctrine may be added
those of British Episcopal Churches, for the reason
that they are, upon this point, explicitly Calvinistic.
The Seventeenth Article of the Church of England
is as follows: "Predestination to life is the everlast-
ing purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations
of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by
his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and
damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out
of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlast-
ing salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore
they be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be
called according to God's purpose by his Spirit work-
ing in due season : they through grace obey the call-
ing : they be made sons of God by adoption : they be
made like the image of his only-begotten Son, Jesus
Christ : they walk religiously in good works : and at
length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting
felicity."
The third article of the Church of Ireland has these
words : "By the same eternal counsel, God hath pre-
destinated some unto life, and reprobated some unto
death : of both which there is a certain number,
known only to God, which can neither be increased
nor diminished. ^
"Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose
of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world
were laid, he hath constantly decreed in his secret
* Can. IV., Niemeyer, p. 731.
"^ Identical with the Lambeth Articles.
20 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianisni.
counsel to deliver from curse and damnation those
whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and
to bring them by Christ unto everlasting salvation,
as vessels made to honour. ^
"The cause moving God to predestinate unto life
is not the foreseeing of faith, or perseverance, or good
works, or of any thing which is in the person predes-
tinated, but only the good pleasure of God himself. ^
For all things being ordained for the manifestation
of his glory, and his glory being to appear both in
the works of his mercy and of his justice, it seemed
good to his heavenly wisdom to choose out a certain
number, towards whom he would extend his unde-
served mercy, leaving the rest to be spectacles of his
justice.
"Such as are predestinated unto life be called ac-
cording unto God's purpose (his Spirit working in
due season), and through grace they obey the calling,
they be justified freely, they be made sons of God by
adoption, they be made like the image of his only-
begotten Son, Jesus Christ, they walk religiously in
good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they
attain to everlasting felicity."^
Having thus sufficiently given the doctrine of Cal-
vinism in regard to Election, I proceed to furnish
that of Evangelical Arminianism. In the absence of
any Symbolic Articles in which the views of Evan-
gelical Arminians touching the doctrine of Election
are embodied, * reference must be had to the state -
^ Same as the English Article.
2 Same as Lambeth Article.
^Nearly identical with English Article.
* In the XXV. Articles of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
the United States, the topic of Election is omitted.
Election Stated and Proved. 21
ments of those who are accepted by theiu as represen-
tative theologians.
John Wesley thus speaks : "The Scripture tells us
plainly what predestination is : it is God's fore-ap-
pointing obedient believers to salvation, not without,
but 'according to his foreknowledge' of all their
works ' from the foundation of the world.' . . . We
may consider this a little further. God, from the
foundation of the world, foreknew all men's believ-
ing or not believing. And according to this, his fore-
knowledge, he chose or elected all obedient believers,
as such, to salvation."
" God calleth /Abraham ' a father of many nations,'
though not so at that time. He calleth Christ 'the
Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,' though
not slain till he was a man in the flesh. Even so he
calleth men 'elected from the foundation of the
world,' though not elected till they were men in the
flesh. Yet it is all so before God, who, knowing all
things from eternity, 'calleth things that are not as
though they were.'
"By all which it is clear, that as Christ was called
'the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,'
and yet not slain till some thousand years after, till
the day of his death, so also men are called 'elect
from the foundation of the world,' and yet not elected,
perhaps, till some thousand years after, till the day
of their conversion to God . . .
"If the elect are chosen through sanctification of
the Spirit, then they were not chosen before they
were sanctified by the Spirit. But they were not
sanctified before they had a being. It is plain, then,
neither were they chosen from the foundation of the
22 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
world. But God 'calleth things that are not as
though they were.' . . .
"If the saints are chosen to salvation, through
believing of the truth . . . they were not chosen be-
fore they believed ; much less before they had a
being, any more than Christ was slain before he had
a being. So plain is it that they were not elected till
they believed, although God 'calleth things that are
not as though they were.' . . .
"It is plain the act of electing is in tiine^ though
known of God before ; who according to his knowl-
edge, often speaketh of the things ' which are not as
though they were.' And thus is the great stumbling
block about election taken away, that men may
'make their calling and election sure.' "^
In another place, Wesley says: "But do not the
Scriptures speak of election ? . . . You cannot there-
fore deny there is such a thing as election. And if
there is, what do you mean by it?
"I will tell you in all plainness and simplicity. I
believe it commonly means one of these two things ;
first, a divine appointment of some particular men, to
do some particular work in the world. And this
election I believe to be not only personal, but absolute
and unconditional . . .
"I believe election means, secondly, a divine ap-
pointment of some men to eternal happiness. But I
believe this election to be conditional, as well as the
^ These extracts are taken from Wesley's tract, entitled, The
Scripture Doctrine concerning Predestination, Election and Re-
proljation : Works, vol. ix., pp. 421, 422, New York Ed., 1S27. It
is incorporated into the Doctrinal Tracts published b}- order of the
General Conference of the Meth. E. Church.
Election Stated and Proved, 23
reprobation opposite thereto. I believe the eternal
decree concerning both is expressed in these words,
* He that believeth shall be saved : he that believeth
not shall be damned.' And this decree without doubt
God will not change, and man cannot resist Ac-
cording to this all true believers are in Scripture
termed elect . . .
**God calleth true believers *elect from the founda-
tion of the world,' although they were not actually
elect or believers till many ages after, in their several
generations. Then only it was that they were ac-
tually elected, when they were made the *sons of God
by faith.' . . .
'*This election I as firmly believe as I believe the
Scripture to be of God. But unconditional election I
cannot believe ; not only because I cannot find it in
Scripture, but also, (to waive all other considerations,)
because it necessarily implies unconditional reproba-
tion. Find out any election which does not imply
reprobation, and I will gladly agree to it. But repro-
bation I can never agree to, while I believe the Scrip-
ture to be of God : as being utterly irreconcilable to
the whole scope of the Old and New Testament." ^
'HVhat do you mean by the word Election? ... I
mean this. God did decree from the beginning to
elect or choose (in Christ) all that should believe to
salvation." ^
''Irresistible Grace and Infallible Perseverance are
the natural consequence of the former, the uncondi-
^ Works, vol. 9, pp. 381, 382, New York, 1827; Predestinatian
Calmly Considered : a part of the Doctrinal Tracts already meu-
tioiied.
^ Ibid., p. 435 : A Dialogue, etc.
24 Calvinism aiid Evajigelical Arniinianism.
tional decree ... So that, in effect, the three ques-
tions come into one, Is Predestination absolute or
conditional ? The Arminians believe it is condi-
tional." '
Richard Watson thus distributes the subject of
election: " Of a divine election, or choosing and sep-
aration from others, we have these three kinds men-
tioned in the Scriptures. The first is the election
of individuals to perform some particular and special
service. . .. . The second kind of election which we
find in Scripture is the election of nations^ or bodies
of people, to eminent religious privileges, and in
order to accomplish, by their superior illumination,
the merciful purposes of God, in benefiting other
nations or bodies of people. . . . The third kind of
election is personal election; or the election of indi-
viduals to be the children of God and the heirs of
eternal life." ^
In regard to the last-mentioned aspect of election —
that which is in dispute — he says : "What true per-
sonal election is, we shall find explained in two clear
passages of Scripture. It is explained negatively by
our Lord, where he says to his disciples, ' I have
chosen you out of the world'; it is explained posi-
tively by St. Peter, when he addresses his first epistle
to the 'elect, according to the foreknowledge of God
the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto
obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus.' To
be elected, therefore, is to be separated from 'the
world,' and to be sanctified by the Spirit, and by the
blood of Christ.
^ Ibid., p. 475 : What is an Anniniaii ? Ansiuered.
2 Thcol. Institutes, vol. ii., pp. 307, 308, 337, New York, 1840.
Election Stated aiid Proved. 25
''It follows, then, tliat election is not only an act
of God done in time ; bnt also that it is snbseqnent to
the administration of the means of salvation. The
'calling' goes before the 'election'; the pnblication
of the'doctrine of 'the Spirit,' and the atonement,
called by Peter ' the sprinkling of the blood of Christ'
before that ' sanctification,' through which they be-
come 'the elect' of God. The doctrine of ^/^r//^/
election is thus brought down to its true meaning.
Actual election cannot be eternal ; for, from eternity,
the elect were not actually chosen out of the world,
and from eternity they could not be ' sanctified unto
obedience.' The phrases 'eternal election,' and
'eternal decree of election,' so often in the lips of
Calvinists, can, in common sense, therefore, mean
only an eternal purpose to elect ; or a purpose formed
in eternity, to elect, or choose out of the world, and
sanctify in time, by 'the Spirit and the blood of
Jesus.' This is a doctrine which no one will contend
with them ; but when they graft upon it another,
that God hath, from eternity, ' chosen in Christ unto
salvation ' a set number of men, ' certam qnoriuidam
hominiim miiltitiidine7n '—not upon foresight of faith
and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other
good quality or disposition (as a cause or condition
before required in man to be chosen); but unto faith,
and the obedience of faith, holiness, etc., 'nan ex
prcEvisafide, fideiqiie obedieiitia, sanctitate, ant aha
aliqiia bona qualitate et dispositionc,' etc., {Judgment
of the Synod 0/ Dort,) it presents itself under a dif-
ferent aspect, and requires an appeal to the word of
God." '
^Ibid., vol. ii., p. 33^-
26 Calvinism and Evangelical Armiiiianism
<^
Without further definition of his own view, Watson
proceeds to argue against the Calvinistic doctrine.
Dr. Ralston adopts Watson's threefold distribution
of election — of individuals to office, of communities
to religious privileges, of individuals to eternal life.
In regard to the last kind he says : "That election
of this personal and individual kind is frequently al-
luded to in the Scriptures, is admitted by Arminians
as well as Calvinists ; but the great matter of dispute
relates to the sense in which the subject is to be un-
derstood. Calvinists say that this election is ' from
all eternity ; ' this Arminians deny, except so far as
the foreknowledge or purpose of God to elect may be
termed election. '
So far for his view as to the temporal origin of
election. As to its conditionality he thus speaks :
"Before the election in question can exist, there
must be a real difference in the objects or persons
concerning whom the choice is made. Even an in-
telligent creature can make no rational choice where
no supposed difference exists ; and can we suppose
that the infinite God will act in a manner that would
be justly deemed blind and irrational in man? The
thought is inadmissible. ... If God selects, or
chooses, some men to eternal life and rejects others,
as all admit to be the fact, there must be a good and
sufficient reason for this election."
Now, what is this reason? He answers : "Wear-
rive at the conclusion, therefore, that however dif-
ferent the teachings of Calvinism, if one man is
' Elements of Divinity, p. 289, Nashville, Teuu., 1882. This
work is edited by Dr. T. O. Summers, aud issued by the Southern
Methodist Fublishin^i^ House.
Election Stated and Proved. 27
elected to everlasting life and another consigned to
perdition, it is not the resnlt of an arbitrary, capri-
cions and nnreasonable partiality, but accords with
reason, equity, and justice, and is a glorious display
of the harmonious perfections of God. It is because
the one is good and the other bad ; the one is right-
eous and the other unrighteous ; the one is a be-
liever and the other an unbeliever ; or the one is
obedient and the other rebellious. These are the
distinctions which reason, justice, and Scripture
recognize ; and we may rest assured they are the only
distinctions which God regards in electing his people
to glory, and sentencing the wicked to perdition." '
Dr. ]\Iiner Raymond, Professor in Garrett Biblical
Institute, Illinois, in his Systematic Theology, con-
curs in the three-fold distribution of election already
indicated, but differs with the writers who have been
cited in regard to the end to which individuals are
savingly elected. They make it eternal life, and he
a contingent salvation. According to them, election,
being conditional upon the foresight of perseverance
in faith and holiness to the end of life, terminates on
an assured felicity in heaven ; according to him
election, being conditioned upon the foresight of only 1
a contingent perseverance in faith and holiness, I
terminates on only a contingent salvation. Election
is not to eternal life, but to the contingent heirship
of eternal life. Let us hear him speak for himself:
"A third use of the terms 'elect,' 'elected,'
'called,' 'chosen,' and other terms of similar import,
is found in the Scriptures. 'Many are called, but few
are chosen.' 'Elect according to the foreknowledge
^Ibid., pp. 291, 292, 293.
28 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisni,
of God the Father, through sanctificatioii of the Spirit,
unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus.'
Here, evidently, the choosing is after the calling —
that is, it is an act done in time. The election is by
and through the sanctification of the Spirit ; that is,
it is a selection, a choosing out of the world, a sepa-
ration from the world, by regeneration, conversion,
the new birth ; in a word, when God justifies a sinner,
regenerates his nature, adopts him as a child of God,
makes him an heir of eternal life, he thereby, then
and there, separates him from the sinners of the
world — elects him to be his child and an heir of
eternal life. The sinner, by this election, becomes a
saint, an elect person, and is frequently so called in
the Scriptures.
"This election is almost universally spoken of as
conditioned upon repentance toward God and faith in
our Lord Jesus Christ ; and if, in any passages, the
condition is not specifically mentioned, it is plainly
implied. If, in any sense, this election is eternal, it
is so only in the purpose of the Divine Being to
elect; and as the election itself is conditioned upon
\ faith, it follows that the eternal purpose to elect was
■ based upon that foreseen faith. . . .
"Men may do despite unto the Spirit of grace by
which they have been sanctified. Till probation
terminate.s, final destiny is a contingency. Two
opposite eternities are either of them possible, and
the question is decided, never by any thing external
to the man himself, but by his own free choice, aided
by the grace of God. ' ' '
It is necessary to add that this writer makes re-
nvoi, ii., pp. 420, 423.
Electio7t Staled and Proved. 29
generation a work, jointly wronght by divine and
human agency, and holds that, in the order of
thought, repentance precedes faith and faith precedes
regeneration. The question being, What conditions
salvation? his answer is — and it deserves special
notice as indicative of the developments of the Evan-
gelical Arminian theology — "That salvation is con-
ditioned upon man's acceptance, and co-operation by
faith, is implied in all the commands, precepts, ex-
hortations, admonitions, entreaties, promises, and •
persuasions of the Word of God ; and such passages
as the following are equivalent to a direct affirmation
that man determines the question of his salvation :
*He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth
not shall be damned,' " etc. ^
It may be asked, why Fletcher has not been pre-
viously summoned as a witness. The reason is, that
the definition which he gives of election, as pertain-
ing to individual salvation, seems to be somewhat
peculiar to himself. He represents it as of two kinds,
one an election to initial salvation, conveying a tem-
porary redemption, — which is unconditional ; the
other an election to eternal salvation, — which is con-
ditioned upon the perseverance of the believer to the
end of the day of initial salvation. "We believe,"
says he, "that Jesus Christ died for the whole human
race, with an intention first, to procure absolutely and
unconditionally a temporary redemption, or an initial
salvation for all men universally ; and secondly, to
procure a particular redemption, or an eternal salva-
tion cojtditionally for all men, but absolutely for all
that die in their infancy, and for all the adult who
Wbid., pp. 358, 359. .
30 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
obey him^ and are faithful tinto deaths ^ The state-
ment is eccentric and somewhat confused, but agrees
substantially with those which have been furnished.
These statements of the Calvinistic and Evangel-
ical Arminian doctrines of election having been fur-
nished, the way is open for an analysis of the Calvin-
istic doctrine into its component elements, and the
exhibition of the scriptural proofs on which they are
founded.
It is resolvable into the following elements : first,
its author or efficient cause ; secondly, its object, in
general ; thirdly, its objects, in particular ; fourthly,
its end or final cause ; fifthly, its origin ; sixthly, the
love which it involves ; and seventhly, its ground or
reason. This order of statement is adopted, not be-
cause it is deemed most logical, but because it is de-
sirable to consider last the features of the subject in
regard to which the Calvinist and the Evangelical
Arminian mainly join issue.
>V Before these points are considered, it is proper to
^ premise, that in this discussion there is no intimation
of an order of tinie^ as obtaining in the relation to
each other of the divine decrees. What is intended
is that one may be in order to another, in this sense —
that one may be pre-supposed by another. The de-
cree, for instance, to permit the Fall is in order to, or
pre-supposed by, the decree to provide redemption for
sinners. To deny such an order as this, because it
appears to conflict with the simplicity and immuta-
bility of an Infinite Being, is to reject all difference
and distinction between the acts of God, and to reduce
all his perfections to the absolute unity of his essence;
^ Works, vol. iii., pp. 435, 436: London, 1815.
Election Stated and Proved. 31
and that would be to subvert the doctrine of the
Trinity itself. We are obliged to conceive an order
of thought or nature as existing in the divine decrees.
**What divines," says President Edwards, '^ intend by
prior diW^ posterior in the affair of God's decrees, is
not that one is before another in the order of time, for
all are from eternity ; but that we must conceive the
view or consideration of one decree to be before an-
other, inasmuch as God decrees one thing out of re-
spect to another decree that he has made ; so that one
decree must be conceived of as in some sort to be the
ground of another, or that God decrees one because
of another ; or that he would not have decreed one,
had he not decreed that other." ^ Then follows an
argument in which Edwards powerfully supports this
view. ^' While," observes Dr. Thorn well on the
same subject, "owing to the simplicity and eternity
of the divine nature, there cannot be conceived in God
a succession of time, nor consequently various and
successive decrees, yet we may justly speak of his
decrees as prior or posterior in point of nature." *
*'The question," remarks the same writer in another
place, "concerning the order of the divine decrees
involves something more than a question of logical
method. It is really a question of the highest moral
significance. The order of a thing very frequently
determines its righteousness and justice. Conviction
and hanging are parts of the same process, but it is
something more than a question of arrangement
whether a man shall be hung before he is convicted." ^
^ Misc. Observations concerning Divine Decrees and E lection y
I 58.
^ Coll. Writings, vol. ii. p. 124.
^ Ibid., vol. ii. p. 20.
32 CalviJiism and Evangelical Ajnmnianism.
Corresponding with this order in the decrees we
must conceive also an order in the exercises and
modes of the divine perfections — one not of time, but
of thought; that is, the exercise of one divine perfec-
tion is pre-supposed by that of another, and a mode
of a perfection is pre-supposed by another mode of the
same perfection. The conceptions of the divine in-
telligence, for example, must be considered as in or-
der to the exercises of the divine justice and love and
the acts of the divine will. The view which God
took of man unfallen, man fallen, and man to be re-
deemed, was in order to those exercises of justice and
love, and those determinations of will, which were
related to man in those respective conditions. So
also, for instance, the intrinsic perfection of divine
love is one, but it may exist in different modes, one
of which is pre-supposed by another. The benevo-
lence of God towards the creatures of his power is
pre-supposed by that peculiar love which has for its
objects those who are redeemed by his dear Son and
imited to him by the grace of his Spirit.
It is not designed to say that one mode precedes
another which in an order of time did not previously
exist. The modes of the divine love are co-eternal,
and their appropriate objects were eternally before
the divine mind. When tJie objects are actually
brought into existence, no new modification of the
love of God occurs. There is only a new manifesta-
tion of his love which exijsted eternally. And, al-
though the subject is confessedly difficult, I can see
no just reason for supposing that a new manifestation
of love would be equivalent to a new modification of
that attribute. It may be a question, whether it be
Election Stated a) id Proved.
II
not necessary to suppose a new modification of the
divine will, involved in the determination to eff L-ct
a manifestation of love which had not previously
been made. But were that so — which I am not pre-
pared to admit as beyond doubt — the immutability
of the divine love, even as to its modes, would not be
disproved, unless it could be conclusively shown that
the love of God is one and the same with the will of
God considered as determinative. One is apt to think
that impossible, notwithstanding the fact that some
eminent theologians, under the influence of the old
scholastic distribution of the mental powers into
intelligence and will, have expressed themselves in
favor of the identity of the divine love and the divine
will even in its acts. The view which denies an
order of nature in the divine decrees and the exer-
cises of the divine perfections, on the ground of the
simplicity and immutability of the infinite Being,
cannot be adjusted to our convictions of the distinc-
tion between intelligence and will, between justice
and mercy, between benevolence and complacency.
The result would be the impersonal infinite substance
of the Pantheist, manifesting itself in conformity
with a law of blind necessity. And yet he is com-
pelled by the patent facts of observation to grant that
this impersonal substance expresses itself diversely in
the countless differences of finite existence. But the
argument is not with the Pantheist : it lies within
the limits of Christian Theism. It is enough to
point out the fact that those theologians who merge
the divine love into the acts of the divine will have
no hesitation in afiirminof a difference between the
intelligence and the wnll of God. Nor would they
3
34 Calvi)iisj}i and Evangelical Aj'niinianisnt.
deny that the conception of ends by tlie divine wis-
dom is pre-snpposed by, and is in order to, the
specific determinations of the divine will. It is no
derogation from the glory of the ever-blessed God to
say, that one decree is in order to another, or that
the exercise of one perfection is in order to the exer-
cise of another. With these preliminary cautions I
proceed to develop the proofs of election.
I. The Author or Efficient Cause of Election — God.
This answers the question, Who elects ?
Eph. i. 4: "According as he hath chosen us in
him" — that is, accordinQf as God the Father has
chosen us in Christ. This meaninQf of the words is
determined by the immediately preceding verse :
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual bless-
ings in heavenly places in Christ." The doctrine is
here taught that God the Father, as the representa-
tive of the Trinity, is the author of the electing de-
cree. From his bosom the scheme of redemption
sprang.
2 Thess. ii. 13 : " Rut we are bound to give thanks
always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord,
because God hath from tlie beginning chosen you to
salvation."
I Thess. V. 9 : "For God hath not appointed us to
wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus
Christ."
These passages are sufficient to prove, beyond
doubt, that God, and God alone, is the author or effi-
cient cause of election. This the Evangelical Ar-
minian professes to acknowledge, not only with
regard to the election of communities to peculiar
Eleclion Stated and Proz'cd. 35
privileges, but also to that of individuals to salvation.
But if it be true that, according to his system, the
will of man is the ultimate, determining cause of his
choice of salvation, it follows inevitably that man and
not God is the efficient cause of election. That man
determines the question of his salvation, we have
seen, by a citation from his Systematic Theology,
that Dr. IMiner Raymond expressly asserts. ' But if
this be regarded as an individual opinion which can-
not be considered representative of the system, I shall
endeavor, in the prosecution of the argument under
another head, to prove that what he candidly avows
is the logical result of the principles which he holds
in common with his school. And should the proof
be fairly exhibited, it will be evinced that the Evan-
gelical Arminian theology stumbles upon the very
threshold of the scriptural doctrine of election. It is
one thinof to sav that God is the author of a scheme
of redemption, involving the accomplishment of a
universal atonement and the bestowal of universal
grace, and quite another to say that he is the author
of the election of sinners to salvation. The former
the Arminian affirms ; the latter he is logically bound
to deny.
2. The Object^ in gene7'al^ of election — man consid-
ered as fallen and 7'uined. This answers the ques-
tion, Upon what did election terminate?
Rom. V. 8: "God commendeth his love toward us,
in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for lis."
Eph. i. 4: "According as he hath chosen us in
^ The same assertion is distinctly made by Dr. James Stron<;, in
his article on Arminianism (Wesleyan), in the SchafF-Herzog
Cyclopaedia.
36 Calviiiisui and Evangelical Arnilnlanisni.
him [that is, Christ], before the foundation of the
world."
Ezek. xvi. 6: "And when I passed by thee, and
saw thee poUuted in thine own blood, I said unto thee
when thou wast in thy blood. Live ; yea, I said unto
thee when thou wast in thy blood. Live."
Rom. ix. 21 : "Hath not tlie potter power over the
clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto
honour, and another unto dishonour?"
Upon this point the issue is between the Supralap-
sarians and the Sublapsarians. Some of the former
contend that in the decree of election man was viewed
simply as creatable, others, that he was contemplated
as created but not fallen. The Sublapsarians hold
that in that decree man was regarded as fallen and cor-
rupt. In favor of the Sublapsarian doctrine I urge —
(i.) The Scriptural argument.
In the passage cited from the fifth chapter of Rom-
ans the apostle is treating of the security of those who
are justified through faith in Christ. His argument
is drawn from the love of God towards them. The
electing love of God, having been eternally pitched
upon them viewed as sinners and therefore ill-deserv-
ing, was not grounded in or conditioned upon any
good quality or act foreknown to pertain to them, but
issued freely from his bosom, and, from the nature of
the case, cannot change in consequence of the change-
ableness of its objects. Having loved them regarded
simply as ungodly sinners, he cannot fail to love
them contemplated as reconciled to him by the death
of his Son. It is evident that the passage teaches
that the object of election w^as man viewed as fallen
and s'nfuk
Election Stated and Proved. 37
When, ill the passage taken from the first chapter
of Ephesians, tlie apostle declares that believers were
chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world,
he must mean that they were elected to be redeemed
by Christ, appointed as their Mediator and Federal
Head ; and, therefore, it is necessarily implied that
wdien elected they were conceived as ruined by sin.
In the graphic passage quoted from the sixteenth
chapter of Ezekiel, God, under the figure of a polluted,
deserted, helpless infant represents the object of his
electinor love as beino: in a state of sin and miserv.
The description cannot have reference to the execu-
tion of the electing purpose in effectual calling, for
the palpable reason that that is immediately after set
forth as terminating upon the same infant when it had
arrived at marriageable age. It is curious that in the
attempt to make this and other statements of Scripture
refer to the temporal execution of the electing pur-
pose, the great Supralapsarian Dr. Twisse and the
Arminians are at one wnth each other. Extremes
meet. The company is hardly creditable to the pro-
fessed Calvinist.
In the celebrated passage from the ninth chapter of
Romans, the "lump" must refer to the fallen and
corrupt mass of mankind, for —
First, Divine mercy, from its very nature, cannot
terminate upon any other than an ill-deserving and
miserable object. Those who are chosen out of the
mass are denominated "vessels of mercy." IMercy
proposes to save its objects, and none can be consid-
ered susceptible of salvation but those who are sinful
and ruined.
Secondly, The lump is that from which Jacob is
38 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisni.
said to have been taken ; and it is evident that he be-
longed to the fallen and corrupt mass of mankind.
That Esau and Jacob are declared to have done neither
good nor evil cannot be proved to refer to their elec-
tion simply as creatable men, or apart from their being
contemplated as sinners. The meaning clearly is, if
we judge from the analogy of the passage, that God's
preference of one to the other was not conditioned
upon his knowledge of a distinction between their
characters. Regarding them both as belonging to a
sinful race, and, consequently, both as condemned, he
elected Jacob and passed by Esau. In electing one
and rejecting the other, he had no regard to their
"works," that is, their special conscious virtues or
sins. They were both viewed as fallen and condemned
in Adam. This is Calvin's view ; ' and it proves him
to have been a Sublapsarian.
Thirdly, Esau and other reprobate men are called
"vessels of wrath." But wrath is the exercise of re-
tributive justice towards the guilty. It pre-supposes
the sinful character of the objects upon wdiom it is
inflicted. Moreover, they are said to be "fitted for
destruction." Now, either they were fitted to con-
tract guilt in order to destruction, or they were fitted
for destruction in consequence of guilt. If the former
be supposed, they are not the objects of just punish-
ment. The supposition is impossible. If the latter
be true, they are regarded in God's decree as sinners
worthy of punishment. This is the true view.
Another argument which may be adduced is, that
the Scriptures "represent calling as the expression of
election — the first articulate proof of it. But calling
^ Comni. on Rom. cb. ix.
Election Stated and Proved. 39
is from a state of sin and misery. Therefore election
must refer to the same condition. We are said to be
cliosen out of the world." ^
It deserves to be noticed, also, that Supralapsarians
confound the wider and the narrower senses of Pre-
destination, both of which are employed in Scripture.
In the wider, it means the general purpose or deter-
mination of God in relation to all actual things. In
the narrower, it signifies the designation of certain
definite beino^s — men — to salvation or destruction. It
is manifest that the particular decree of election or of
reprobation is different from the general decree by
wdiicli all things are brought into existence. The
order, then, is : the decree to create or bring into ex-
istence. This grounds foreknowledge of existing be-
ings. Now this foreknowledge which presupposes
the decree to bring into existence, in turn, in the
order of thought, precedes Election and Reproba-
tion— the special decree of predestination. Then the
foreknowledge of the actual salvation or destruction
of men presupposes their election or reprobation.
General decree of predestination — general foreknowl-
edge ; special decree of predestination — special fore-
knowledge : that, I conceive is the order indicated in
Scripture. Supralapsarianism confounds the special
with the general decree. The distinction is indis-
pensable to a correct understanding of the Scriptures.
These special arguments are enhanced and con-
firmed by the general doctrine of the Scriptures that
God is not the author of sin but its righteous punisher.
For, the Supralapsarian fails to relieve his view of the
consequence that it implies the divine efficiency in
' Tliornwell, Coll. Writings^ vol. ii. p. 25.
40 Calvinism and Evangelical Armijiianism.
the production of sin, by the distinctions which he
makes — namely, that while God is the producer of the
sinful act as an entity and therefore a good thing, he
does not produce the sinful quality which inheres in
the act ; and that God is not the efficient cause of sin,
since sin itself is not a positive thing requiring an ef-
ficient, but merely the privation of a good quality
and therefore supposing only a deficient, cause. How-
ever ancient may be these distinctions, and however
venerable may be the names by which they are sup-
ported, they are liable to the charge of depreciating
the criminal enormity of sin, and of threatening to
reduce it to a mere imperfection incident to the make
of the finite creature.^
(2.) The Metaphysical argument.
''The Supralapsarian theory," says Dr. Charles
Hodee, "seems to involve a contradiction. Of a Non-
Ens (a thing not existent), as Turrettin says, nothing
can be determined. The purpose to save or condemn,
of necessity must, in the order of thought, follow the
purpose to create." "The theory," observes Dr.
Thornwell, "which makes the decree respect man
not as fallen, nor even as existing, but only as cap-
able of both, makes the decree terminate upon an ob-
ject which in relation to it is a nonentity. It makes
the decree involve a palpable contradiction."
There is first the conception in the divine mind of
all possible beings. The knowledge of the futurition,
the actual existence, of any of these possible beings —
I speak not now of the acts of beings — must depend
upon the determination of God to reduce them from
^ See Freed, of the Will in its Tlieo. Relations, iu the So. Pres.
Review, for a discussion of these distinctions.
Election Stated and Proved. 41
tlie category of the possible to that of the actual.
Without such a decree, how could he kuow them as
certaiu to be? Aud if he could not know them as
existent, how could lie determine anything in regard
to them as existent? Not known as to be, they
would be beyond the reach of any predication save
that of possibility. The Supralapsarian theory con-
founds the conception of the possible with that of the
actual. If there be such a decree as it affirms, it
would , from the nature of the case, terminate on the
barely possible — possible beings would be its objects.
God is represented as decreeing to save or damn
beings who are conceived to be in posse^ not in esse^
and who cannot therefore be conceived as guilty and
ruined. Whatever qualities could be conceived as
attaching to them must have been conceived as pos-
sible qualities, for actual qualities cannot be con-
ceived as inhering in merely possible beings. Now
there is predication of actual qualities necessarily in-
volved in the decree to save or to condemn. It is
true that the decree to create terminates on the pos-
sible, but it does not involve the contradiction of
supposing actual qualities to inhere in only possible
entities. Its very design is to put the possible into a
condition in which it can be capable of attribution,
and therefore of moral destination. Let us suppose,
with the Supralapsarian, that first of all God decreed
to glorify his grace and his justice. There must be
beings through whom that glorification shall be
effected. Now what sort of beings does God pre-
destinate to that end? Possible beings, replies he.
Are then possible beings predestinated to an actual
heaven and an actual hell? Again, he contends that
42 Calvinism arid Evangelical Arminianisni.
men are predestinated to damnation for their sin.
What sort of sin? The possible sin of possible men?
Is it not evident that the conception of actual men
and actual sin is pre-supposed in a decree to adjudge
them to actual salvation and actual damnation? But
that implies the decree to create as pre-supposed by
the decree to predestinate to salvation or destruction.
Furthermore, there can be no distinction of sin and
holiness in beings merely possible. That distinction
is rendered possible only by the decree to create.
When they are created, beings may remain holy or
fall into sin. As this distinction conditions the pos-
sibility of a decree to predestinate to salvation or
damnation, the decree to create must in the order of
thought precede the decree to elect or to reprobate.
The maxim, ''What is last in execution is first in
intention," which the Supralapsarian urges in favor
of his scheme, cannot be proved to hold of the plan
by which God develops his purposes. That plan
does not appear to involve a subordinated, but a co-
ordinated series — that is, one in which the parts are
related as conditions to each other, but not as means
to ends. Creation, the Fall, Redemption are co-
ordinate parts of God's great plan, each having its
own peculiar significance, resulting from its own
peculiar adaptation to manifest the divine glory
through the illustration of certain divine perfections.
.But the Supralapsarian doctrine makes, at least log-
ically if not confessedly makes, each element in the
general scheme a means to the attainment of the
succeeding feature, and the whole a concatenated
series of means to the accomplishment of the ulti-
mate end. Creation is in order to the Fall, the Fall
Election Stated and Proved, 43
ill order to salvation or damnation, and they in order/
to the g'lory of grace and jnstice. Upon this theory
it is not conceivable tliat the Fall shonld not have
happened. It was necessary, in order that men might
glorify grace in their salvation and jnstice in their
damnation. The covenant of works with a probation
possible to have been fnlfilled, and glorions rewards
possible to have been secnred, becomes unintelligible.
It is not conceivable how the theory can be adjusted
to the genius of the Calvinistic tlieology.
(3.) The Moral argument.
There are law^s of rectitude at the root of the
moral faculty which are regulative of our moral
judgments, just as there are laws of thought and
belief at the root of the intellect which control its
processes. Now the fundamental laws of justice and
benevolence, implanted by the divine hand in our
moral constitution, rise up in revolt against the doc-
trine that God first determines to glorify his justice
in the damnation of men, and then determines to
create them and "efficaciously to procure" their fall
into sin in order to execute that purpose. The
Supralapsarian logically makes God the efficient pro-
ducer of sin. Dr. Twisse's distinction between
God's decreeing to effect, and decreeing efficaciously
to procure, the fall of man into sin, is a distinction
without a difference. If God shut up man to sin, it
was the same as his causing him to sin. But if any-
thing is certain, it is that God is not the efficient
cause of sin. If he were, as he cannot do wrong,
sin would cease to be sin and become holiness, and
the distinction between right and wrong would be
completely wiped out.
44 Calvinism aitd Evangelical Arniinianism.
(4.) The argument from Calvinistic consent.
None of the Calvinistic Symbols are Supralapsarian.
Some of them imply, without expressly asserting,
Sublapsarianism. Others are distinctly Sublapsarian:
In the last-named class are the Canons of the Synod
of Dort and the Foj-mnla Consensus Helvetica.
3. The Objects^ in particular^ of election — some indi-
vidual men. This answers the question. Who are
elected ?
Matt. xxiv. 22: "But for the elect's sake those
days shall be shortened."
INIatt. xxiv. 24: "Insomuch that, if it were pos-
sible, they shall deceive the very elect."
Matt. xxiv. 31: "x\nd he shall send forth his angels
with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather
together his elect from the four winds, from one end
of heaven to the other."
Lk. xviii. 7: "And shall not God avenge his own
elect, which cry day and night unto him ?"
Rom. viii. 33: "Who shall lay anything to the
charge of God's elect?"
Rom. xvi. 13: "Salute Rufus chosen (elect) in the
Lord."
Eph. i. I, 4, 5, 7, 11: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus
Christ by the will of God, to the saints wdiich are at
Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus. . . .
According as he hath chosen (elected) us
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children
by Jesus Christ. ... In whom we have redemp-
tion by his blood, the forgiveness of sins
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being
predestinated according to the purpose of him who
worketh all thinijs after the counsel of his own will."
Election Stated and Proved. 45
Col. iii. 12 : "Put on, therefore, as the elect of God,
holy and beloved, bowels of mercies."
I Thess. i. 4: "Knowing, brethren beloved, your
election of God."
1 Thess. V. 9: "For God hath not appointed us to
wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus
Christ."
2 Thess. ii. 13 : "But we are bound to give thanks
alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord,
because God hath from the beginning chosen (elected)
you to salvation."
2 Tim. ii. 10: "Therefore I endure all things for
the elect's sake."
Tit. i. I : "Paul, a servant of God and an apostle
of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect."
I Pet. i. I, 2 : "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, elect according to
the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sancti-
fication of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling
of the blood of Jesus Christ."
These passages conclusively show, that there is not
only an election of communities to peculiar privi-
leges— which is cheerfully conceded — but that there
is an election of individuals to everlasting salvation ;
and the conclusion from these testimonies cannot be
resisted, that the latter is the highest and the most
important sense which is attributed to election by the
Word of God. This distinction is admitted by the
Evangelical Armiuian. But he holds that the elec-
tion of individuals is conditioned upon the divine
foresight of their faith and perseverance in holiness.
Election, tlien, according to him, is not really the
46 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianisni.
election of individuals to a certain salvation, but, if
the solecism be allowable, the election of a condition
upon which individuals may attain to salvation ; but
of this more anon. His argument in favor of a cofi-
ditional election of individuals, derived from the text
in Peter last cited, will be considered when his proof-
texts come to be noticed.
It deserves to be considered, that the Arminian
cannot object to the Calvinistic doctrine on the ground
that it represents a definite number of individuals as
elected to everlasting life ; for the Arminian doctrine
enforces precisely the same view. According to the
latter doctrine, God foreknows who will believe and
persevere in faith and holy obedience unto the end,
that is, unto the attainment of final salvation. Those
who will so persevere to the end are, of course, a
definite number. Now it is they who are, by Armin-
ians, said to be elected. The conclusion is unavoid-
able that a definite number of individuals are elected.
The main difference between the two doctrines, that
in regard to which the stress of the controversy be-
tw^een them takes place, is concerning the question
of the conditionality or the unconditionality of elec-
tion. Does God eternally elect individuals to believe,
and to persevere in holiness unto the attainment of
everlasting life? The Calvinist answers. Yes. The
Arminian answers. No : he purposes to elect to ever-
lasting life those who of their own free choice believe
and persevere in holiness to the end. What the pur-
pose to elect signifies, how it accomplishes any more
than the individual's own perseverance to the end
achieves, it is impossible to see; but such is the Ar-
minian T30sition. Conditional or unconditional? —
Election Staled and Proved.
47
These are the test-questions, the shibboleths of tlie
contestants. The extract from Watson previously
given evinces this to be the chief issue.
- 4. T/ie End or Final Canse of Elcction^proxi-
mately^ the everlasting life of sinners ; nltiniately^
the glory of God- s grace. This answers the question,
Unto what does God elect?
(i.) The proximate end of election is the everlast-
ing life of sinners.
Matt. XXV. 34: "Then shall the King say unto
them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from
the foundation of the world."
John vi. 37, 44: "All that the Father giveth me
shall come to me ; and him that cometh I will in no
wise cast out. . . . Xo man can come to me, except
•the Father which hath sent me draw him : and I will
raise him up at the last day."
Acts xiii. 48 : "And when the Gentiles heard this,
they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord :
and as many as were ordained to eternal life be-
lieved."
Rom. viii. 28-30, i,2>^ 34, 38, 39: "And we know
that all things work together for good to them that
love God, to them who are the called according to his
purpose. For, whom he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,
that he might be the first-born among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also
called ; and whom he called, them he also justified :
and whom he justified, them he also glorified. . . .
Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?
It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemn-
48 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
eth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen
again, and who is even at the right hand of God, who
also maketh intercession for ns. . . . For I am per-
suaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor
things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other
creatnre, shall be able to separate us from the love of
God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Eph. i. 9-11: "Having made known unto us the
mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure
which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dis-
pensation of the fulness of times he might gather
together in one all things in Christ, both which are
in heaven, and which are on earth ; even in him : in
wdiom also we have obtained an inheritance, being
] redestinated according to the purpose of him who
worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."
1 Thess. V. 9: "For God hath not appointed us to
wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus
Christ."
2 Thess. ii. 13, 14: "But we are bound to give
thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of
the Lord, because God hath from the beofinninof
chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the
Spirit and belief of the truth : whereunto he called
you by our Gospel to the obtaining of the glory of
our Lord Jesus Christ."
(2.) The ultimate end of election is the glory of
God's grace.
Rom. ix. 23: "And that he might make known
the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which
he had afore prepared unto glory."
Eph. i. 5, 6, II, 12: "Having predestinated us
Election Stated and Proved. 49
unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to
himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he
hath made us accepted in the beloved. ... In whom
also we have obtained an inheritance, being predesti-
nated according to the purpose of him who worketh
all things after the counsel of his own will : that we
should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted
in Christ."
These scriptural statements in regard to the end or
final cause of election are so explicit that comment is
scarcely necessary, especially as there is here no issue
worth noticing between the Calvinist and the Evan-
gelical Arminian.
It is trne that, as the extracts given from their
waitings show, Fletcher and Raymond held peculiar
views upon this point, but they contravene the cath-
olic doctrine of Arminianism. Fletcher's view,
which distinofuishes between an absolute election of
individuals to an initial and contingent salvation, on
the one hand, and a conditional election of all men
and an unconditional of some to a final salvation, on
the other, is liable to the following objections : first,
tliat the distinction has no foundation in Scripture,
as the passages which have been cited prove ; sec-
ondly, that it is out of harmony with the general
doctrine of his school of theology, as expounded by
such writers as Wesley and Watson ; and thirdly,
tlu^t he asserted both a conditional and an uncondi-
tional election to final salvation.
The view which is common between Fletcher and
Raymond — that election is of individuals unto faith
and holy obedience, is confronted by the fatal diffi-
4
50 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianisnt.
culty that it concedes the Calviiiistic position which
has always been resisted by Arniinian theologians,
namely, that God's decree includes the election of
individuals unto faith and holy obedience as means
to the attainment of everlasting life as the end. The
general doctrine of Arminian writers is, that these
are conditions upon which election takes place, and
that individuals may or may not perform the condi-
tions. If they do, they are elected unto everlasting
life ; if they do not, they are not so elected. But
the Calvinist makes the performance of these condi-
tions part of the electing decree. So far, therefore,
as Fletcher and Raymond represent individuals as
elected unto faith and holiness, they give up the
question to their opponents. Consequently, I cannot
in fairness attribute to Evangelical Arminianism
views which, although asserted by Arminians, are
incapable of logical adjustment to it as a system. It
is evident that Dr. Raymond has, in his Systematic
Theology, taken a new departure which seems to be
his own. How far he is a representative of current
opinions is an interesting question, but one which I
have not the means of deciding. While I endeavor
to show, that logically the Arminian scheme main-
tains an election of conditions upon which individ-
uals may attain to everlasting life, rather than the
election of individuals to everlasting life, that is quite
a different thing from endeavoring to show — what is
not logically true of it — that it holds an election of
individuals to the use of the elected conditions.
/ 5. The Origin of election^from eternity. This
/ answers the question, When did God elect?
Jer. xxxi. 3: *'Yea, I have loved thee with an ev-
Election Stated and Proved. 51
erlasting love : therefore with loving-kindness have
I drawn thee."
Matt. XXV. 34: ''Come, ye blessed of my Father,
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foun-
dation of the world."
John vi. 2il, X. 29, xvii. 2, 9: "All that the Father
giveth me shall come to me." "My Father which
gave them me." "That he should give eternal life
to as many as thou hast given him." "I pray for
them : I pray not for the world, but for them which
thou hast given me ; for they are thine."
Eph. i. 4, 5, II : "According as he hath chosen us
in him before the foundation of the world
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children
by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good
pleasure of his will. . . . Being predestinated
according to the purpose of him who worketh all
things after the counsel of his will."
Eph. ii. 4, 5: "For his great love wherewith he
loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quick-
ened us."
2 Tim. i. 9: "His own purpose and grace, which
was given us in Christ Jesus before the world beo-an."
Isa. ix. 6, with Isa. viii. 18 and Heb. ii. 13, 14:
"His name shall be called .... The Everlast-
ing Father." "Behold, I and the children whom the
Lord hath given me." "Behold, I and the children
which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the
children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also him-
self likewise took part of the same."
These testimonies prove that election does not take
place in time, but is from eternity.
By the extracts which have been alreadv furnished
52 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisin.
from their writings it will be perceived, that Wesley,
Watson, Ralston and Raymond contend that election
takes place in time. It is not an eternal predestina-
tion. When men believe, they sometimes say, at
others, when they are justified and sanctified, at others
still, when t?hey have persevered to the end, they are
then elected ; not before. But —
(i.) Their general doctrine is explicitly delivered,
that election is conditioned upon the divine foresight
of perseverance in faith and holy obedience to the
end. A believer may, near the termination of his
earthly course, totally and finally fall from grace and
perish forever. In consistency with this doctrine,
then, they must hold that election cannot take place
in time ; that it can only take place when time with
all its contingencies has ceased with the believer and
he has attained the end of his faith. It can only
occur at or after the expiration of his last mortal
breath, for up to that critical moment he may lose
his religion and miss of heaven. There is here,
therefore, a manifest contradiction. One position is,
that election takes place in time ; the other is, that it
takes place after time has ceased : it occurs when the
man believes, is justified and sanctified ; it occurs
when he has finished his course and has entered
heaven ! It would seem after all that they hold to
election in eternity, but it is eternity a parte post^ not
eternity a parte ante/
(2.) If election occur in time, it must, at the time
at which it occurs, fix the destiny of the believer sub-
sequently to that time, that is, for eternity. Other-
wise it is a changeable election, and that the Evan-
gelical Arminian does not allow. If one is elected
Election Stated and Proved. 53
when he believes, etc., the election is then to eter-
nal life or it means nothing. But if the believer
may, as he does hold, fall from faith and holiness and
finally perish, it follows that the election is unto eter-
nal life and not unto eternal life at the same time.
Here then is another instance of contradiction.
(3.) A distinction is drawn between a purpose to
elect and actual election. The former is conceded to
be eternal, the latter, it is contended, takes place in
time. What is this, but the distinction between an
eternal purpose and its temporal execution? God,
for example, eternally purposed to create the world.
Its actual creation occurred in time. The actual
creation was the temporal execution of the eternal
purpose to create. If, then, the distinction were
admitted between an eternal purpose to elect and
actual election, the latter would be but the temporal
execution of the former. But, the execution in time
of an eternal purpose must correspond with the pur-
pose itself. As it was, so must be its temporal ac-
complishment. If the purpose was unconditional, so
must be its execution ; if conditional, the execution
must correspond with it. One fails to see what is
gained by this distinction, so urgently insisted upon
by Evangelical Arminian theologians, even if their
demand for an actual election were granted.
But the question inevitably arises, What is their
actual election? Is it conversion? No, for conver-
sion is one of its conditions ; and a condition must be
before that which is suspended upon it. Is it sancti-
fication? No, for sanctification is also one of its con-
ditions. Is it perseverance in holiness? No, for per-
severance in holiness is equally one of its conditions.
54 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
What, then, is it? If perseverance in faith and holi-
ness to the end condition it, it follows that this actual
election cannot precede the end. Actual election can
only be the election of a man to be saved who is al-
ready saved, of one to get to heaven who has got
there. If that consequence be refused, naught re-
mains but to admit that the only election which is
conceivable is God's eternal purpose of election. An
election in time is rendered impossible by Arminian
principles themselves.
(4.) Arminian writers make purpose and foreknowl-
edge one and the same thing. God eternally pur-
poses to elect in the sense of eternally foreknowing
an actual election. But, in the first place, if, as has
been shown, an actual election distinguished from a
decree to elect be nothing, God's foreknowledge of an
actual election would be his foreknowledge of nothing.
In the second place, the very design of this identifi-
cation of purpose and foreknowledge is to exclude
divine determination from election, and reduce it to
simple prescience. It must, therefore, follow that the
everlasting salvation of a countless multitude of sin-
ners is the result not of divine, but of human, deter-
mination. God, it is true, determines the existence
of the means of salvation, but those who will be saved
determine their employment. Heaven with its eter-
nal felicity and glory is not decreed, it is only foreseen,
by the Almighty Ruler of the universe. This cannot
be admitted. The consequence refutes the doctrine.
6. The Love involved in election — a peculiar^ fr^^^
inalienable^ saving love of Complace7icy towards the
elect. This answers the question, How does God
regard the elect ?
Election Stated and Proved. 55
Ex. XXX. 19: "And he said, I will make all my
goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the
name of the Lord before thee : and I will be gracions
to whom I will be gracions, and will shew mercy on
whom I will shew mercy."
Rom. ix. 13, 15, 16, 18: ''As it is written, Jacob
have I loved. . . . For he saith to Moses, I will have
mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have
compassion on whom I will have compassion. So
then it is not of him that wi-lleth, nor of him that
rnnneth, bnt of God that sheweth mercy, . .There-
fore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy."
Mai. i. 2, 3: "Was not Esan Jacob's brother?
saith the Lord : yet I loved Jacob and I hated Esan."
Dent. vii. 7, 8: "The Lord did not set his love
npon }'on, nor choose yon, because ye were more in
number thaw any people ; for ye were the fewest of
all people: but because the Lord loved you."
Dent. X. 15: "Only the Lord had a delight in thy
fathers to love them, and he chose their seed."
Isa. xliii. 4: "Since thou wast precious in my
sight, thou hast been honorable, and I have loved
thee : therefore will I give men for thee, and people
for thy life."
Isa. Ixiii. 9 : "In all their affliction he w^as afflicted,
and the angel of his presence saved them : in his love
and in his pity he redeemed them ; and he bare them,
and carried them all the days of old."
Isa. Ixiii. 16; "Doubtless thou art our Father,
though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel ac-
knowledge us not : thou, O Lord, art our Father, our
Redeemer; thy name is from everlasting."
Ps. Ixxxix. 19, 20, 28, 30-35: "Then thou spakest
56 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianisni.
in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help
upon one that is mighty ; I have exalted one chosen
out of the people. I have found David my servant ;
with my holy oil have I anointed him. . . . ]\Iy
mercy will I keep for him forevermore, and my cove-
nant shall stand fast with him. ... If his chil-
dren forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments ;
if they break my statutes, and keep not my com-
mandments; then will I visit their transgression with
the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Neverthe-
less my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from
him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant
will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out
of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that
I will not lie unto David."
Ps. xciv. 18 : "When I said, ]\Iy foot slippeth ; thy
mercy, O Lord, held me up."
Isa. liv. 8, 10: "In a little wrath I hid my face
from thee for a moment ; but with everlasting kind-
ness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy
Redeemer. . . . For the mountains shall depart,
and the hills be removed ; but my kindness shall not
depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my
peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on
thee."
Isa. xlix. 15: "Can a woman forget her sucking
child, that she should not have compassion on the
son of her womb? Yea, they may forget, yet will I
not forget thee."
Mic. vii. 20: "Thou wilt perform the truth to
Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast
sworn unto our fathers from the days of old."
Jer. xxxi. 3: "The Lord hath appeared of old unto
Election Stated and Proved, 57
me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee witli an everlast-
ing love : therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn
thee."
Zeph. iii. 17 : "The Lord thy God in the midst of
thee is mighty ; he will save, he will rejoice over thee
with joy ; he will rest in his love, he will joy over
thee with sinoincr. "
John xvii. 23, 26 : "I in them and tlion in me,
that they may be made perfect in one ; and that the
world may know that thon hast sent me, and hast
loved them as thon hast loved me .... And
7.
I have declared unto them thy name, and will de-
clare it ; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me
may be in them, and I in them."
Rom. V. 5, 8, 9: "Hope maketh not ashamed;
because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts
by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while
w^e were yet sinners Christ died for us. INIuch more
then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be
saved from wrath through him."
Rom. viii. 32, 33: "He that spared not his own
Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he
not with him also freely give us all things? Who
shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?"
Rom. viii. 38, 39: "For I am persuaded, that
neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities,
nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
nor height, ner depth, nor any other creature, shall
be able to separate us from the love of God which is
in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Rom. ix. 13: "As it is written, Jacob have I
loved, but Esau have I hated."
58 Calvinism and Evangelical Arnmiianism.
Epli. ii. 4, 5: "But God, who is rich in mercy,
for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when
we were dead in sins, hath quickened us tog^ether
with Christ. . . . That in the ages to come he
might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his
kindness toward us through Christ Jesus."
Tit. iii. 4-7 : "But after that the kindness and love
of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by
works of righteousness which we have done, but ac-
cording to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of
regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost ; which
he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our
Saviour ; that being justified by his grace, we should
be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
Heb. xiii. 5 : 'i For he hath said, I will never leave
thee, nor forsake thee."
I Jno. iii. i: "Behold, what manner of love the
Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be
called the sons of God."
1 Jno. iv. 9, 10, 19: "In this was manifested the
love of God toward us, because that God sent his only
begotten Son into the world, that we might live
through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God,
but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the pro-
pitiation for our sins. . . . We love him because
he first loved us."
2 Thess. ii. 16, 17: "Now our Lord Jesus Christ
himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved
us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and
good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and
stablish you in every good word and work."
To some of these proof-texts it is objected, that they
have exclusive reference to Israel as a community
Election Stated and Proved. 59
elected to national privileges. Waiving now the con-
siderations which will hereafter be adduced in answer
to this objection, it is enough to say that the passages
cannot possibly be limited to the outward nation of
Israel apart from the true, spiritual Israel who are in
Scripture emphatically characterized as the seed of
Abraham and Jacob. Take the powerful passage
quoted from the thirty-first chapter of Jeremiah, as
an example. The whole context in which it stands,
and especially the great, evangelical promise which is
connected with it, make it apparent that the electing
love, which it proclaims, terminates not only on Is-
raelitish and Jewish believers, but also on all God's
true people, and is the fountain of spiritual and sav-
ing blessings: ''Behold, the days come, saith the
Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house
of Israel and with the house of Judah : not according
to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the
day that I took them by the hand to bring them out
of the land of Egypt, which my covenant they brake,
although I was a husband to them, saith the Lord :
but this shall be the covenant that I will make witJi
the house of Israel ; After those days, saith the Lord,
I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it
in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall
be my people. And they shall teach no more every
man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying,
Know the Lord : for they shall all know me, from the
least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the
Lord : for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will re-
member their sin no more."
The testimonies alleged from Scripture clearly re-
veal the nature of God's electingr love. It is ex-
6o Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisni.
pressly declared to be eternal. It is peculiar : it is
directed to the people of God. It is free, that is,
sovereign and unconditioned upon any good quality
or act in its objects. They are contemplated as in
themselves condemned and polluted sinners. It is
intense and inalienable : more so than that of a
mother for the babe that sprung from her body and
suckles her bosom. It is saving : it is the source of
every benefit of redemption and the cause of preserva-
tion to everlasting life.
The fact that the passage in Titus declares that
the kindness and love of God appeared in time can
create no difficulty. That which was manifested in
time must have eternally existed, for it is impossible
to conceive that God be-gan to love in time — that a
divine attribute had a temporal origin.
Following the instructions of the Scriptures, we
are constrained to admit that there are two distinct
aspects of the divine love or goodness. One of these,
in the form of benevolence, terminates on men indis-
criminately, the just and the unjust, the evil and the
good ; and, when it is directed to them as ill-deserv-
ing and miserable, it assumes the special form of
mercy. The other, the love of complacency, is a pe-
culiar affection, supposing the existence in its sinful
objects of a saving relation to Christ as Mediator,
Federal Head and Redeemer. Now let it be sup-
posed that the infinite benevolence of God, in the
form of mercy contemplating the lost and wretched
condition of man, into which he was conceived as
having plunged himself by his sin and folly, sug-
gested his salvation: "Deliver him from going
down to the pit." Tliat suggestion was checked by
Election Stated and Proved. 6i
the demands of infinite justice, which could not be
denied without a sacrifice of tlie divine glory:
'Xursed is every one that continueth not in all
things that are written in the book of the law to do
them." For, although the attributes of God are all
infinite, and cohere in his essence in perfect harmony
with each other, the exercise of one may be limited
by another. The exercise of mercy towards the
fallen angels was checked by wisdom and by justice.
It pleased God, in the case of human sinners, by a
sovereign act of his will, to open a way for the out-
going and exercise of his mercy in the salvation of a
part of them, and to leave the w^ay open for the exer-
cise of Ihs justice in the punishment of the remain-
ing part. The Father, as the representative of the
Godhead, "according to the good pleasure of his
will," elected some of mankind to be redeemed.
This, while it was a sovereign act of his will, in-
volved the exercise of infinite love and mercy; and as
the objects upon which the choice terminated were
regarded simply as sinners, condemned and unholy,
the love and mercy were free, mere love ?.:id mercy.
"God commendeth his love toward us, in that while
we were yet sinners Christ died for us," and, of
course, the unmerited love which so illustriously ex-
pressed itself on earth was eternal. Those thiLS des-
ignated became the Father's elect ones, his sheep,
whose redemption he had sovereignly determined to
effect. Appointing, in infinite wisdom and love, the
eternal Son as their ^lediator and Redeemer, the
Father entered into covenant with him as Federal
Head and Representative, and gave his elect sheep to
him, that as their good Shepherd, he might, when
62 Calvinism and Evangelical Aruiinianisni.
incarnate, lay down his life for their redemption.
"Thine they were," says the Saviour, ''and thou
gavest them me." The Son, on his part, freely ac-
cepted the momentous tiust, and engaged to lay
down his life for them, to lose none of them, to give
every one of them everlasting life and raise him up at
the last day. "I am the good Shepherd: the good
shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. . . . My
sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they fol-
low me : and I give unto them eternal life ; and they
shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out
of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is
greater than all." "I came down from heaven not to
do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me,
that of all which he hath given me I should lose
nothing, but should raise it up again at the last
day." Thus conceived as in Christ the elect became
the objects of a complaceniial love, measured only by
the regard of the Father for his weW-beloved Son.
"Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast
been honorable, and I have loved thee." "I," says
the Lord Jesus, "have declared unto them thy name,
and will declare it : that the love wdierewith thou
hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."
riiis love of complacency towards the elect is not
to be confounded with God's love of benevolence
tD wards all men. It includes the love of benevolence,
but is inconceivably more. It differs from it in im-
portant respects. In the first place, it supposes a pe-
culiar relation of the elect to God's only-begotten
Son, and is, according to scriptural representations,
analoo:ous to the love the Father bears to him. In
Election Stated and Proved. 63
the second place, the gift of Christ which it specially
makes to the elect, and in which it expresses its meas-
ure, is infinitely more costly and precious than that of
sunshine, rain and other mere providential blessings
which benevolence indiscriminately confers upon the
general mass of men. In the third place, the elect,
although in themselves unlovely, are conceived as in
Christ intrinsically possessed of the graces of the Holy
Spirit, which render them appropriate objects of com-
placential regard. It is this love, this peculiar, in-
tense, unutterable love, which the Scriptures declare
to be manifested towards the elect in the actual exe-
cution of God's eternal purpose of salvation.
It is manifested in the gift of his Son for their re-
demption : " He that spared not his own Son, but de-
livered him up for us all, how shall he not with him
also freely give us all things?" Who these "all"
are is to be collected from the next sentence : "Who
shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?"
"Beloved, let us love one another. ... In this
was manifested the love of God toward us, because
that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world,
that we might live through him. Herein is love, not
that we loved God but that he loved us, and sent his
Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if
God so loved us, we ought also to love one another."
"And this is the record, that God hath given to us
eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath
the Son hath life ; and he that hath not the Son hath
not life."
It is manifested in their attraction to Christ. "No
man can come to me except the Father which hath
sent me draw him." "Yea, I have loved thee with
64 Calvinisnt and Evangelical Arininianism.
an everlasting love ; therefore with loving-kindness
have I drawn thee."
It is manifested in their regeneration. ''But God,
who is. rich in nierc)', for his great love wherewith he
loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quick-
ened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
and hath raised us up together, and made us sit to-
gether in heavenly places in Christ Jesus ; that in the
ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of
his grace in his kindness tow^ards us through Christ
Jesus." "But after that the kindness and love of
God our Saviour tow^ard man appeared, not by works
of righteousness which w^e have done, but according
to -his mercy he saved us by the washing of regener-
ation and renewing of the Holy Ghost."
It is manifested in their justification and covenant
union to God in Christ. "God commendeth his love
toward us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ
died for us. ]\Iuch more then being justified by his
blood, w^e shall be saved from wrath through him."
"After that the kindness and love of God toward
man appeared, . . . that being justified by liis grace,
we should be made heirs according to the hope of
eternal life." "And when I passed by thee, and saw
thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee
when thou wast in thy blood. Live; yea, I said unto
thee when thou wast in thy blood, Uve. " Here was
free, mere, eternal, electing love. "Now when I
passed by thee and looked upon thee, behold thy time
was the time of love ; and I spread my skirt over
thee and covered thy nakedness : yea, I sware unto
thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine."
Here was the manifestation of electing love.
Election Stated and Proved. 65
It is manifested in their adoption. "Behold, what
manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us,
that we should be called the sons of God : therefore
the world knoweth us not because it knew him not."
It is manifested in their sanctification. "The grace
of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all
men, teaching us that denying ungodliness and
worldh^ lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and
godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed
hope, and the appearance of the great God and our
Saviour Jesus Christ ; who gave himself for us, that
he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto
himself a peculiar people, zealous of good w^orks."
And it is manifested in their comfort and preserva-
tion to eternal glory. "Can a woman forget her
sucking child, that she should not have compassion
on the son of her womb? Yea, they may forget, yet
will I not forget thee." "For a small moment have
I forsaken thee ; but with great mercies will I gather
thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a
moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have
mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer . . . For
the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed ;
but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither
shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the
Lord that hath mercy on thee." "But we are bound
to give thanks always to God for you, brethren be-
loved of the Lord, because God hath from the begin-
ning chosen you to salvation through sanctification
of the Spirit and belief of the truth. . . . Now our
Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God even our Father,
which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting
consolation and good hope through grace, comfort
5
66 Calvmzsm and Evangelical Arminianism.
your hearts and stablish you in every good word and
wofk.'^
In connection with this aspect of the subject of
election, the Arminian doctrine is open to the charge
of being entirely unscriptural.
First, it destroys the difference which, it has been
incontestably shown by the explicit testimony of
Scripture, exists between God's love of benevolence
for mankind in general and his love of complacency
for his elect people in particular. This is proved by
the fact that it represents God as having furnished the
very highest expression of his love to all men indis-
criminately : he gave his Son to die for all. The
point here urged is, not that the Arminian is unscrip-
tural in holding this doctrine, though that is true, but
that in maintaining it he reduces the intense, inex-
pressible, unchangeable affection which God from
eternity entertained for his own people to a general
regard for all sinners of the human race — his love for
his sheep to a love for goats. If God gave his dear
Son to die equally for all, he loved all with an equal
love. The consequence is irresistible, but it is in the
face of the plainest declarations of the divine Word.
Tke Arminian will, of course, reply, that there is
no plainer declaration of that Word than that God
so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not per-
ish but have everlasting life. To this the rejoinder
is inevitable, that if his construction of that passage be
correct, the Word of God would contradict itself For
it would be a contradiction, if the gift of Christ were
affirmed at one and the same time to be and not to be
the expression of a peculiar love of complacency. We
Election Stated and Proved. 67
are shut up to a choice between these contradictories,
one of which must be true, the other false. The
weight of testimony is overwhelmingly in favor of
the first alternative, and by that a regard for evidence
compels us to abide.
The same remarks will apply to other and less for-
cible passages, which are ordinarily pleaded in sup-
port of the love of God, and a consequent atonement,
for every individual of the human race. They are all
capable of being debated ; but to dispute about the
assertions of Scripture touching the eternal, peculiar
and inalienable love of God for his chosen people, is
not to inquire into their meaning but to deny their
authority. IMore at present will not be said upon this
particular aspect of the subject. A fuller discussion
of it is reserved to a consideration of the objections
to the Calvinistic doctrine which are derived from the
moral attributes of God.
Secondly, the unscriptural character of the Ar-
minian's denial of electing love is made apparent by
his denial of the fruits which spring from it. The
Scriptures represent it as a cause which produces very
definite results. We have seen, by a direct reference
to their testimony, that the drawing of the sinner to
Christ, his regeneration and justification, adoption,
sanctification and preservation to everlasting felicitv,
are attributed to it. These inestimable benefits the
Arminian ascribes to the general love of God for
mankind, but his system compels him to deny that
they flow with certainty from it. They are contin-
gent results. Why? Because that love does not of
itself ensure their production : the will of the sinner
is their real, efficient cause, and as that acts con-
68 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
tingently, the results may or may not be effected.
The love of God o-ives him the opportunity, fur-
nishes him what is called sufficient grace, provides
for him a ground of acceptance in the atoning merit
of Christ ; but he must improve the opportunity, he
must use the grace, he must accept the offered atone-
ment. He may not do any of these things ; and co<i-
sequently in innumerable instances no saving results
follow from the love of God to men. The mere
statement of the doctrine is sufficient to evince its
contrariety to scriptural truth. The fact is, that as
the Arminian denies electing love, he is obliged to
deny that it produces any fruit : no cause, no effect.
The denial of the latter proves the unscriptural char-
acter of the denial of the former. If anything be
clearly revealed in the Word of God it is that saving
results are produced with certainty by the love of
God for sinners : it is a saving love. If, therefore, in
the case of some men those results are not produced,
it follows irresistibly that the saving love of God
does not terminate on all, and that, as it takes effect
on some only, it is electing love.
Should the Arminian contend that he is not cor-
rectly represented, and that he admits a special love
of God for his saints, the answer must be rendered,
that whatever his view may be of that love, he does
not regard it as saving. It is conceded that he holds
the gift of Christ for the world to have been the fruit
of love and mercy. But for what end did God send
his Son into the world? He answers: to die for all
men. His doctrine, however, is that the Son did not
die to save all men. If he did, he failed to attain
that end, for the Arminian allows that manv are lost.
Election Stated and Proved. 69
For what, then, did Christ die? He replies : to make
the salvation of all men possible. How possible? In
this way, he says : if men believe in Christ and con-
tinue in faith to the end, they will be saved. The
atonement secures for them that possibility. But on
the supposition that some believe, become saints, and
are especially dear to God, they may cease to be saints
and perish forever. Whatever, then, may be, accord-
ing to the Arminian view, the love of God towards
his saints, it is a love which does not secure their sal-
vation : it is not a saving love. It is not equal to the
love which a mother cherishes for her child. She
would save him if she could. This reputed divine
love may be called a special love, but it is not the
love for his saints which the Scriptures assign to
God. The idea of it was not born of inspiration :
God never claimed such love as his own.
Thirdly, the determination to save those who, God
foresees, will believe and persevere in faith and holi-
ness to the end — the Arminian election — is not the
fruit of mere, free love : it is partly the suggestion of
justice. As their salvation is suspended upon their
faith and perseverance, it is due to them, upon their
fulfilment of the condition, that they should receive
the end. Justice recognizes this foreknown fulfilment
of the condition precedent, and adjudges to them the
salvation which God himself made to depend upon it.
Mercy makes the condition possible, it is true ; but
justice demands the rewarding of its performance.
This conclusion could only be avoided by making
faith and perseverance in holy obedience the products
of efficacious grace. But that would be the doctrine of
Hypothetical Redemption, not of Arminianism. The
70 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisni,
advocate of the former scheme concurs with the Ar-
miniaii in holding the universality of the atonement,
but he differs from him in asserting the predestinated
efficacy of grace. That the Arminian denies. In the
last analysis, then, as Dr. Miner Raymond coolly but
honestly puts it, "man determines the question of
his salvation ;" and if so, it is but right and just that
God should acknowledge the fact. God appoints the
condition : believe and persevere ; but he cannot
make the sinner believe and persevere. "Our human
system," says Dr. Whedon,"^ "is a system of free
agents upon whose will and determination it depends
whether they attain eternal bliss or eternal woe. . . .
In the sinner's act of acceptance of God's saving
grace we promptly deny any 'make-willing' on the
part of God which excludes man's power of not-will-
ing or refusing. God demands a free acceptance. He
does not make a farce of our probation by first requir-
ing our free-willing, and then imposing upon us a
'make-willing.' The free-willing and the 'make-
willing' are incompatible." The sinner, then, must
himself, by his own improvement of assisting grace,
believe and persevere. Well, he does it. What
then? Why, he has performed the condition, won
the reward, and justice, assisted by grace, places the
crown upon his head ! It is perfectly plain that the
Arminian doctrine does not refer the determination to
save sinners to the mere love of God : it ascribes it in
part to God's sense of justice. Whatever the Arniin-
ian's reason may say about this doctrine, it is cer-
tainly the poles apart from scriptural truth.
7. The GroitJid or Reason of election — positively^
* Comni. on Rom., ch. ii.
Election Stated and Proved. 71
the mere good pleasure of God's sovereign will; neg-
atively^ nothing in the elect themselves. This answers
the question, Why did God elect?
(i.) The ground or reason of election is, positively,
the mere good pleasure of God's sovereign will.
Dent. vii. 7, 8: ''The Lord did not set his love
upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in
number than any people ; for ye were the fewest of all
people : but because the Lord loved you, and because
he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto
your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a
mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of
bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt."
Deut. iv. ^n '- "And because he loved thy fathers,
therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought
thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of
Egypt."
Dan. iv. 35: "He doeth according to his will in
the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of
the earth : and none can stay his hand, or say unto
him, What doest thou?" — a confession wrung from
even a heathen monarch.
Matt. xi. 25, 26 : "At that time Jesus answered and
said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and
earth, because thou hast hid these things from the
wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes.
Even so. Father: for so it seemed good in thy siglit."
Ex. XXX. 19: "And he said, I will make all my
goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the
name of the Lord before thee : and I wnll be gracious
to whom I will be gracious, and I will shew mercy to
whom I will shew mercy."
"Alal. i. 2, 3: "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?
saith the Lord : yet Iloved Jacob and I hated Esau."
72 Calvinism and Evangelical Anjiinianism.
Rom. ix. 11-16: "For the children being not yet
born, neither having done any good or evil, that the
purpose of God according to election might stand,
not of works, but of him that calleth ; it was said
unto her. The elder shall serve the younger. As it is
written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness
with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I
will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I
will have compassion on whom I will have compas-
sion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of
him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."
I Cor. i. 21 : "For after that in the wisdom of God
the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God
by the foolishness of preaching to save them that be-
lieve."
Eph. i. 5, 9-1 1 : "Having predestinated us unto
the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself,
according to the good pleasure of his will.
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will,
according to his good pleasure which he hath pur-
posed in himself: that in the dispensation of the ful-
ness of times he might gather together in one all
things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which
are on earth ; even in him : in whom also we have
obtained an inheritance, being predestinated accord-
ing to the purpose of him who worketh all things
after the counsel of his own will."
Phil. ii. 13 : "For it is God which worketh in you
both to will and to do of his good pleasure."
The Scripture testimonies which have thus been
collected clearly and powerfully prove, that the God,
who, even according to Nebuchadnezzar's confession,
Election Stated and Proved. 73
doetli according to his will in the army of heaven ai»id
among the inhabitants of the earth, whose hand none
can stay and to whom none can say, What doest thou?
has decreed the salvation of some of the human race,
According to his mere, sole, sovereign pleasure. The
statements of this fact are express and unequivocal.
Nothing but adherence to a system could lead one
who reverences God's word to deny their force. The
objects of the divine decree are declared to be pre-
destinated unto the adoption of children and to an
inheritance in Christ, according to the good pleasure
of God's will, according to his good pleasure which
he hath purposed in himself, according to the purpose
of him who workelli all thino-s after the counsel of
o
his own will. In one short passage the assertion is
made again and again, with impressive reiteration, as
if to preclude all shadow of doubt, that the ground
of election is alone tjie sovereign pleasure of the
divine will. There can be no question as to the
objects of the decree : they are those who are adopted
as the children of God in Christ, those who obtain an
inheritance in Christ. Nor can there be any question
as to the existence of the decree : it is termed a pre-
destinating purpose. Nor can there be any question
as to the seat of this predestinating decree : it is
affirmed to be the will of God. Nor, finally, can
there be any question as to its absoluteness : it is pre-
cisely described as purposed in himself, according to
his good pleasure. There is no place for supposing
any reference to an extrinsic ground, reason, or con-
dition. The purpose, as to its origination and ground,
is intrinsic to God, purely sovereign and absolutely
unconditioned by anything ab extra. The objects
74 Calviiiisni and Evangelical Arminianisni.
upon whom it terminated were extraneous to God ;
but the purpose itself was as free as it was subjective
to him. Every individual human being to whom it
was directed might have been justly consigned with
the revolted angels to hell.
The passage in Philippians discharges, in relation
to this question, a twofold office. In the first place,
it shows, positively, that the whole application of
redemption springs from the good pleasure of God's
will ; and, in the second place, negatively, as with a
devouring edge it cuts away the supposition that any-
thing in the creature can condition the purpose of
God to save. It declares that the willing and the
doing — the whole of the obedience of the Christian
man — is determined by the will of God working ac-
cording to his good pleasure. In few but pregnant
words, a conclusive testimony is rendered to the effi-
cacious grace of God as the expression and realization
of the eternal purpose of his will.
Our blessed Lord and Saviour spoke very definitely
in regard to this subject. After mentioning the
sovereign distinction which God in his providence
had made between the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida
and Capernaum on the one hand, and Tyre, Sidon
and Sodom on the other, in giving the gospel to the
former and withholding it from the latter, he answers
objections which might be rendered to this divine
procedure and all others like it by saying, "I thank
thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because
thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent
and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father:
for so it seemed good in thy sight." He solemnly
expresses his acquiescence in the divine sovereignty
• Etection Stated and Proved. 75
which refuses a saving knowledge of redemption to
some and grants it to others. To say that the proud
debar themselves from it is futile, for God could, if
he so willed, in a moment overcome their pride, as he
did in the case of Saul of Tarsus, a typical repre-
sentative of the very class who were cavilling at the
Saviour's doctrine and rejecting his offer of the
o-ospel. Nor can the Arminian consistently urge this
construction of the language of our Lord, since he
admits that Tvre, Sidon and Sodom would have
accepted the gospel had it been tendered to them
supported by miraculous proofs. Why, then, did
God denv it to them? What answer can be given by
the Arminian himself to this question, but that so it
seemed good in God's sight? He admits, I say, that
the cities specified would have repented if the gospel
had been preached to them, for this is one of the
passages which he adduces to support his doctrine of
a scientia vudm-^ conditional foreknowledge of
God. ' He foreknew that if the gospel were fur-
nished to those cities they would repent. Why then
did God not furnish them the gospel? It is hard to
see how one who denies the sovereignty of election,
and affirms the indiscriminate love of God for all
mankind, can answer that question.
It is objected that the proofs derived from the
passaoes in Exodus, Deuteronomy, IMalachi and the
nintirchapter of Romans are irrelevant, because they
refer not to the election of individuals to salvation,
but of a nation to peculiar privileges. This question
has long been discussed by^commentatoi^^
■-T^^^;^^^;;;^^^;^:^^;^:^^^ Xew York, 1840. Here the
doctrine is approved.
76 Calvinism and Evangelical Arjninianism.
logians, but it has a fresh interest for every genera-
tion. Arguments in answer to the above-mentioned
objection are here briefly presented.
First, the objection concedes the principle of a
sovereign and unconditional election. Why, argues
God with Israel, did I swear unto your fathers
and bring them into covenant relation tome? Be-
cause, he answers, I loved them. Why did he love
them? The reply is, that it was not because of any
qualities he saw in them which distinguished them
favorably from other peoples, but because such was
his sovereign pleasure. If, therefore, it be admitted
that God chose Israel from among the nations with
whom they had been equally immersed in idolatry,
and without any reference to pre-disposing conditions
in them elevated them to a special relation to himself
and the enjoyment of peculiar blessings, the principle
of an unconditional election is clearly conceded. The
objection to a specific application of the principle,
namely, to individuals in regard to salvation, pro-
ceeds upon the acknowledgment of the principle
itself. It is confessed that a nation was uncondition-
ally elected to peculiar privileges.
Secondly, the election of a nation to peculiar privi-
leges of a religious nature, involving a knowledge of
redemption, was the election of individuals to those
religious privileges, for they were the components of
the nation. The election of a nation, considered ab-
stractly and apart from the individuals forming it,
would be unintelligible. The individuals constitut-
ing the nation were, by the election of the nation,
brought into contact with these peculiar religious
privileges. Those who were not connected with the
Election Stated and Proved. yj
nation elected were divinely exchided from contact
with them. It follows that the principle of a sover-
eien, nnconditional election was exhibited in relation
to individuals. The individuals of one nation were
discriminated from the individuals of another.
Thirdly, the individuals of the nation elected were
brousrht into relation to the conditions of salvation —
the only conditions upon which salvation could be
attained. Their election to national privileges of a
religious and redemptive character conditioned their
attainment of eternal salvation. Here then was a
sovereign, unconditional election of individuals to
conditions without which their salvation would have
been unattainable. The objector admits that this
election rendered their salvation more probable, than
it would otherwise have been ; but he denies that it
necessarily conditioned salvation, that without it sal-
vation would have been impossible. This question
will be argued at length when the objections to un-
conditional election from the moral attributes of God
come to be examined. At present a few considera-
tions drawn immediately from Scripture are sub-
mitted. They are conclusive upon the point.
In the first place, the great argument of Paul in
Romans proves that no individual of the human race
can be justified and saved except through faith in the
vicarious merits of Christ. This cannot be success-
fully gainsaid.
In the second place, Paul, in the tenth chapter of
the same epistle, declares that no individual of the
race can exercise faith in Christ, except he has heard
of him. Faith in Christ conditions salvation, and
the knowledo^e of Christ conditions faith in him.
/S Calvinism and Evangelical Annijiianisni.
*'How shall they believe in him of whom they have
not heard?"
In the third place, God's Word explicitly asserts that
no man under heaven can he saved except through
the name of Christ, that is, of course, through the
knowledge of that saving name. "Neither is there
salvation in any other : for there is none other name
under heaven given among men, whereby we must
be saved."
In the fourth place, Paul, in the second chapter of
Ephesians, closes the case by furnishing the concrete
proof. The Ephesian Christians had been heathen,
that is, they at one time did not know the gospel of
Christ. Now the apostle tells them that at that time
they were in a hopeless condition : their salvation
would have been impossible had that state of ignor-
ance continued. The argument is plain and over-
whelming. "At that time ye were without Christ."
Why? "Ye were aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise."
Because they were not connected with the nation of
Israel they did not know the gospel ; and because
they did not know the gospel they could not know
Christ. Hence, they had "no hope and were with-
out God in the world." Without connection with
the visible church, they had no knowledge of the
gospel ; therefore they were without Christ, without
God and without hope.
These arguments from Scripture are sufficient to
prove, that the unconditional election of a nation to
peculiar privileges, of a religious and redemptive char-
acter, is the unconditional election of the individuals
composing it to conditions, upon which alone eternal
Election Stated and Proved. 79
salvation is attainable. Now it is manifest, that
other nations were not excluded from access to the
means of salvation because they were morally worse
than the Israelites, and that the Israelites were not
elected to the enjovment of those means because they
were morally better than other peoples. It was then
by virtue of God's sovereign, unconditional election,
that the nations rejected were left in an idolatrous
and heathenish state in which they were not salvable,
and that the Israelites were introduced into a state in
which they possessed the means of salvation. If the
operation of the principle of sovereignty in election
went thus far, why should it not be admitted that it
went farther — that it also manifested itself in produc-
ing actual salvation? Some of the Israelites them-
selves were not actually saved ; some of them were.
The presumption afforded by the analogy of the case
would lie in favor of the unconditional election to sal-
vation of such as were actually saved. All were, by
reason of a sinful nature, equally indisposed to make
a profitable use of the means of grace, to employ the
conditions of salvation. None were more worthy
than others of the grace which would enable and
determine them to look through a sacrificial ritual
and typical ordinances to the only true sacrifice for
sin, and believe in him to salvation. The presump-
tion, I say, is in favor of the conclusion that a divine
election made the difference between the two classes
— the unsaved and the saved. The principle of
sovereign election would, in its application, have
proceeded but a step farther. A long step ! it will be
said. Yes, but the Almighty God can take long
steps. He treads upon the mountains and the stormy
8o Calvinism and Evano^elical Arminianism.
ci)
seas, and he can triumphantly march over all diffi-
culties raised by sin and hell to the eternal salvation
of the soul.
This powerful presumption is confirmed by all those
testimonies of Scripture already quoted which un-
questionably prove, that the proximate end of the
election of individuals is everlasting life, and by all
those yet to be cited wdiicli as unquestionably prove,
that the conditions of final salvation are not the con-
ditions of election — that faith and perseverance in
holy obedience are themselves the fruits of election :
that, indeed, they are parts of salvation begun on
earth and completed in heaven.
Fourthly, let it be admitted that Jacob and Esau
were the respective heads of different nations, and it
cannot be denied that they were also individuals.
The language of Scripture in regard to them cannot,
without violence, be confined to them as national
heads. It refers to them chiefly as persons in relation
to the divine purpose. Meyer, whose commentaries
are held in high repute for critical ability and ex-
egetical fairness, and who certainly was not influenced
by a partisan zeal for Calvinism, says: "Paul, how-
ever, has in view, as the entire context, vv. lo, ii, 13
evinces, in 'the elder and the younger' (the greater
and the lesser) EsaiL and Jacob themselves^ not their
nations y^ He meets the difficultv ur^ed against
this interpretation from the declaration, that "the
elder shall serve the younger," which, it is contended,
was only fulfilled in the national subjection of the
Edomites, the descendants of Esau, to the Israelites,
the descendants of Jacob, in this way : "The fulfill-
^Ou Rom., ch. ix, 11, 12.
Election Stated and Proved. 8i
meiit of the 'serving' is to be found in the theocratic
subjection into which Esau was reduced through the
loss of his birthright and of the paternal blessing,
whereby the theocratic lordship passed to Jacob. But
inasmuch as in Genesis the two brothers are set forth
as representatives of the nations, and their persons
and their destiny are not consequently excluded,— as,
indeed, the relation indicated in the divine utterance
took its beginning with the brothers themselves, by
virtue of the preference of Jacob through the paternal
blessing,— the apostle's apprehension of the passage,
as he adapts it to his connection, has its ground and
its warrant, -^specially in view of similar hermeneutic
freedom in the use of Old Testament expressions."^
We would not tie ourselves to the opinions of com-
mentators on the Bible, remembering the frailty
which made possible the biting sarcasm of Werenfels:
"This is the Book where each his dogmas seeks,
And this the Book where each his dogmas finds ;"
but this impartial witness is true. His appeal to the
immediate context is conclusive enough, and the
appeal, along with it, to the whole drift of the argu-
ment in Romans, and the whole analogy of Scripture
is absolutely decisive.
Let us for the nonce part these twins, and look at
Jacob by himself. It is very certain that the Holy
Ghost speaking through Paul declares him to have
been, in some sense, elected. The Arminian objects
to an unconditional election to eternal life. Now he
must admit that Jacob's election, whatever may have
been its end, was unconditional. The apostle ex-
^Qw Rom., ch. ix, ii, 12.
82 Calvinism a7id Evangelical Arminia^iisni.
pressly teaches that it was not because God regarded
him as a doer of good that he elected him. He
could not have so taught, if it were true that his
election was conditioned upon the divine foresight of
his good works. He might have employed as illus-
trative of his argument the instances of Isaac and
Ishmael, the children of Abraham, the father of be-
lievers ; but those of Jacob and Esau were evidently
more to his purpose ; for there was in themselves no
possible ground of difference between these two
brothers. They were not only the cliildren of tlie
same father, but, as w^as not the case with Isaac and
Ishmael, the children of the same mother; and they
were twins. What could have made the difference
between their persons and their destinies but the
mere unconditioned purpose of God? But it is need-
less further to press a point which can only be re-
sisted by denying the truth of the inspired Word.
The Arminian concedes it.
But he admits, as has been shown by a reference to
representative theologians, the election of some indi-
viduals to eternal life. He must also, upon his prin-
ciples, admit that Jacob was elected to eternal salva-
tion. He was in life the exemplar of urgent and
successful prayer, a prince that had power with God
and prevailed, and in Hebrews he is said to have died
by faith. Having believed in Christ, and done good
works, and persevered in them to the end, he was, of
course, elected to eternal life. Now why not put the
two things together : the unconditional election of
Jacob, which is conceded to be stated by Paul in
Romans, and his election to eternal life, which is
also granted ? Why not admit the teaching of Scrip-
Election Stated and Proved. 83
tare to be, that Jacob was iiiicoiiditionally elected to
eternal life? The only possible answer is, Becanse
Paul in Romans speaks only of Jacobus election to
temporal blessings. The point then to be proved is
that Paul speaks of Jacob's election not only to tem-
poral blessings, but also to salvation.
The first proof is, that the whole tenor and strain
of the apostle's argument in Romans has chief ref-
erence to the justification and salvation of individual -tC
sinners. Consequently, to divert his discourse con-
cerning election, which is a constituent element of
that argument, into another direction, is to wrench it
from its track.
The second proof is, that in the immediate context
Paul treats of the promise made by God to Abraham's
children, and he shows that Jacob was constituted an
heir of that promise by divine election. To say that
this illustrious promise guaranteed, exclusively or
even chiefly, temporal blessings, is to eviscerate the
Scriptures of their meaning. Paul's argument con-
cerning the promise in Galatians as well as in Ro-
mans would be contradicted. The promise conveyed
spiritual and saving blessings. To take any other
view is to strip the Old Testament of its evangelical
element and reduce the New Testament exposition of
it to absurdity. Jacob, therefore, was elected to
share in the promise of salvation ; that is, as a pro-
mised salvation is not an earned salvation he was
elected to salvation.
The third proof is, that the apostle expressly dis-
tinguishes between the natural and the spiritual seed
of Abraham. It is only the latter, argues he, who
are the children of God. In immediate connection
84 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminiaitisin.
with this he introduces the cases of Jacob and Esau
as illustrative of that distinction. Both were the
carnal descendants of Abraham, but only Jacob, of
the two, was one of his spiritual children, and there-
fore one of the children of God. How was he consti-
tuted such? Not by natural descent, but by God's
election of him irrespectively of his works. Jacob's
election was therefore to adoption into God's family,
and, as God never loses any of his adopted children,
to eternal life.
The fourth proof is, that God's saints are explicitly
said in Scripture to be elected unto faith, holy obedi-
ence and perseverance in the same to the end. Jacob
was an eminent saint of God. In calling himself the
God of Jacob, Deity himself pays a tribute to the
exemplary sanctity of his servant. Jacob therefore
was elected to faith, holiness and perseverance in
them to the end — that is, he was elected to salvation.
If this be not the election which Paul treats of in the
ninth of Romans, the principal election of Jacob is
left out of account, and the less is signalized.
These proofs establish the fact that the election of
Jacob was not merely to temporal blessings, and
that consequently it was an unconditional election,
grounded in the sovereign will of God, to eternal
salvation. What is the difficulty that opposes the
admission of these proofs? It is two-fold :
In the first place, the freedom and sovereignty of
the human will would be impugned. God, it is
argued, having endowed the will with these preroga-
tives cannot, consistently with himself, determine it
by his agency. To admit unconditional election is
to admit this divine determination of the will. It
Election Stated and Proved. 85
will hereafter, in the progress of the discussion, be
shown that nnless nnconditional election along with
this admitted inference be received, one ninst hold
the only other alternative, namely, that the hnnian
will, and the luiman will of the natural man, deter-
mines the question of salvation; which is unscrip-
tural, impossible and absurd. If Jacob was not de-
termined to salvation by God's grace, he determined
himself to it; and if anything is certain, it is, that
Paul never taught such a view.
In the second place, it is contended that if the
sovereign, unconditional election of Jacob to salvation
be admitted, one must also concede the sovereign,
unconditional reprobation of Esau ; but that, it is
contended, cannot possibly be allowed. Here a dis-
tinction, which has been already stated, must be ob-
served— between Jacob and Esau as both possessed of
oriorinal sin, and Ivinq: toi2:ether under condemnation
as members of a fallen and corrupt race, on the one
hand, and Jacob and Esau as the conscious doers of
actual good or evil, on the other. Regarded as in the
former condition, they were equally damnable. God
might justly have left both to the doom which was
assigned to Esau. But without regard to the con-
scious, special good works of Jacob, as conditions, he
was sovereignly pleased to confer on him peculiar
religious privileges and his saving grace ; and with-
out regard to the conscious, special bad works of
Esau, as conditions, he was sovereignly pleased to
deny him peculiar religious privileges and his saving
grace. It is certain that the peculiar religious privi-
leges were denied to Esau, but the denial to him of
saving grace is the stumbling-block.
86 Calvinism and Evangelical Anninianism.
Now let it be noticed tliat God did not infuse a
wicked disposition into Ksau, as lie infused a gracious
disposition into Jacob. Finding Bsau wicked, he
I sovereignly left him in that condition, and judicially
condemned him to suffer its punishment. Finding
■ Jacob, like his brother, wicked, he sovereignly lifted
him out of that condition by his unmerited grace,
and in Christ his representative and substitute de-
livered him from condemnation and destined him to
glory.
Let it be noticed further, that God's exclusion of
Esau from connection with the Theocracy, contain-
ing the visible Church of Christ with its ordinances,
which is admitted, was equivalent to God's exclusion
of him from liis favor which is life and his dooming
him to reprobacy. If it be said, that Esau's exclusion
from the fellowship of God's people was in conse-
quence of his sins, the apostle answers that it was not
in consequence of his sins. Before he had done any
evil he was hated of God. It will still be said : that
is true ; but while the purpose of exclusion was be-
fore Esau's actual sins, it was not before God's fore-
knowledge of them, and that foreknowledge con-
ditioned the purpose : this must have been Paul's
meaning. But, it must be replied, this could not
have been Paul's meaning. He could not have in-
tended to distinguish between Esau's actual evil-
doing and God's foreknowledge of it. He could not
liave meant to imph', that in some cases God foinns a
purpose to punish an evil-doer after he has done the
evil, but that in this case of Esau he purposed, before
he actually did evil, to punish him, because he fore-
saw that he would do the evil. Such a conception
Election Stated and Proved. 87
never was suggested by inspiration as that God ever
postpones the formation of a pnrpose to punish sin
until the sin has been committed. All his purposes
are eternal. The only supposition possible is, tliat
Paul meant to say that it was not because God fore-
knew that Esau would do evil that he purposed to
reject him. This being the only possible supposition,
the conclusion is that Paul meant to affirm that God's
purpose as to Esau's rejection was grounded alone in
his own sovereign pleasure.
God's decree to reject Esau was not, then, without
his foreknowledge of Esau's guilty state as a sinner,
but was not conditioned upon his foreknowledge of
Esau's conscious, actual sins. So God's decree to
save Jacob was not without his foreknowledge of
Jacob's guilty state as a sinner, but was not con-
ditioned upon his foreknowledge of Jacob's conscious,
actual good works. If this statement of the case is
not in accord with Paul's, nothing would remain but
to adopt the rigid Supralapsarian view. The Ar-
minian position cannot be harmonized with that of
the inspired apostle.
It has thus been shown that the account of Jacob
and Esau in the ninth chapter of Romans so far from
invalidating, actually confirms, the proofs of the
sovereignty and unconditionality of God's electing
purpose. The subject of reprobation will meet fur-
ther consideration in the sequel. Let us resume the
thread of the main argument which goes to show that
the passages cited, to prove that the ground or reason
of election is the mere good pleasure of God's will,
from Exodus, Deuteronomy, ■Nlalachi and Romans,
do not refer only to a national election to peculiar
88 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisni,
privileges, but chiefly to an individual election to
eternal life.
Fifthly, Paul in Romans and Galatians explicitly
distinguishes between those whom, on the one hand^
he designates as Israel according to the flesh, outward
Jews, the natural descendants of Abraham, and those
whom, on the other, he characterizes as Israel accord-
ing to the Spirit, inward Jews, the true, spiritual
children of Abraham and heirs of the promise. Both
these classes had been elected to the enjoyment of
peculiar privileges, but it is remarkable that he terms
the latter *'a remnant according to the election of
grace.'' Here then is a palpable distinction between
a national election to privileges and an individual
election to salvation. Without it the apostle's lan-
guage is unintelligible.
Sixthly, the consideration which is perhaps the
most conclusive is, that these passages cannot be
wrested from their place in the analogy of Scripture.
They must be construed in harmony with such clear
and powerful testimonies as that which has been ad-
duced from the Epistle to the Ephesians. To pursue
any other course is to mutilate the integrity of God's
Word. What is gained by it on the part of those who
admit an election of individuals to everlasting life, it
is difficult to imagine.
Lastly, the objections which have nearly always
been offered to Paul's doctrine in Romans have not
been urged against an election to national privileges,
but to an unconditional election of individuals to
salvation. Those who present them have hit the
point : that is to say, they understand Paul to teach
this objectionable doctrine, and they cannot agree
Election Stated and Proved. 89
with him. It is not probable that the opponents
alike of the Pauline and the Calvinistic doctrine have
been mistaken as to the identity of the two. It is
more consistent, if not more pious, to hold that both
are erroneous as teaching the same thing, than with
the Arminians to make Paul an antagonist of the
Calvinistic doctrine, which, as some candid infidel
remarked, is as much like his own as if he had spit it
out of his mouth.
(2.) Negatively, election is not conditioned by the
divine foresight of any good qualities, dispositions or
acts of those who are elected : it is an unconditional
election.
First^ All the passages which were adduced to
prove that the ground or reason of election was the
mere good pleasure of God's sovereign will may here
be used to show that election is unconditioned by any
foreseen good qualities, dispositions or acts of man.
Secondly^ Faith is not a condition but a result of
election.
John vi. l-] \ '' All that the Father giveth me shall
come to me" — that is, shall believe in me.
John vi. 65 : ''And he said. Therefore said I unto
you, that no man can come unto me, except it were
given unto him of my Father."
Acts xiii. 48 : "As many as were ordained to eter-
nal life believed."
Eph. ii. 8: "For by grace are ye saved through
faith ; and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of
God."
Phil. i. 29: "For unto you it is given in the be-
half of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to
suffer for his sake."
90 Calvinism and Evangelical Anninianisni.
Acts xiv. 27: "And when they were come, and
had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all
that God had done with them, and how he had
opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles."
Acts xvi. 14: "And a certain woman named
Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira,
which worshipped God, heard us : whose heart the
Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which
were spoken of Paul."
Acts V. 31 : "A Prince and a Saviour, for to give
repentance to Israel." Repentance is here generic,
including faith.
Lk. xvii. 5: "And the apostles said unto the
Lord, Increase our faith."
Heb. xii. 2: "Looking unto Jesus the author and
the finisher of our faith."
Col. ii. 12 : "Buried with him in baptism, wherein
also ye are risen with him through the faith of the
operation of God" — that is, the faith which God's
operation produces.
I Cor. xii. 9: "To another, faith by the same
Spirit."
John iii. 3 : "Except a man be born again, he can
not see the kingdom of God."
Eph. ii. 4-6: "But God who is rich in mercy, for
his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we
were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with
Christ, (by grace ye are saved ;) and hath raised us
up together."
I Tim. i. 9: "Who hath saved us, and called us
with an holy calling, not according to our works, but
according to his own purpose and grace, which was
given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."
Elcclioi Stated and Proved. oi
Jas. i. i8 : "Of his own will begat he ns."
I Cor. i. 26-31 : "For ye see 3-our calling-, brethren,
how that not many wise men after the flesh, not
many mighty, not many noble, are called : but God
hath chosen the foolish things of the world to con-
found the wise ; and God hath chosen the weak
things of the world to confound the things which are
mighty; and base things of the world, and things
which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things
which are not, to bring to nought things that are :
that no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him
are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us
wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and
redemption : that according as it is written. He that
glorieth let him glory in the Lord."
These testimonies conclusively prove that faith is
not a condition but a fruit of election. It does not
condition it, for it is produced by it. The Lord
Jesus explicitly declares that faith is the gift of God,
and that if God did not give it, no man could believe.
Further he declares that the elect shall believe in
him. It is they who were given him by the Father.
If all men were given him by the Father, then, ac-
cording to his testimony, all men would believe in
him. But all men do not believe. The conclusion
is, that those believe in him who were elected to
believe.
In the celebrated passage in the second chapter of
Ephesians, the words "and that not of yourselves, it
is the gift of God" have by some been understood to
refer to salvation— and that salvation is not of your-
selves, it is the gift of God; by others, specifically to
faith — and that faith is not of yourselves, it is the
92 Calvinzsju and Evangelical Arminianisni.
gift of God. The following reasons furnished by
Charles Hodge in support of the latter view appear to
my mind convincing: " i. It best suits the design of
the passage. The object of the apostle is to show the
gratuitous nature of salvation. This is most effectu-
ally done by saying, 'Ye are not only saved by faith
in opposition to works, but your very faith is not of
yourselves, it is the gift of God.' 2. The other in-
terpretation makes the passage tautological. To say:
'Ye are saved by faith; not of yourselves; your sal-
vation is the gift of God; it is not of works,' is
saying the same thing over and over without any
progress. Whereas to say : ' Ye are saved through
faith (and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of
God), not of works,' is not repititious; the parenthet-
ical clause instead of being redundant does good
service and greatly increases the force of the passage.
3. According to this interpretation, the antithesis
between faith and works, so common in Paul's writ-
ings, is preserved. 'Ye are saved by faith, not by
works, lest any man should boast.' The middle
clause of the verse is therefore parenthetical, and
refers not to the main idea ye are saved^ but to the
subordinate one through faith, and is designed to
show how entirely salvation is of grace, since even
faith, by which we apprehend the offered mercy, is
the gift of God. 4. The analogy of Scripture is in
favor of this view of the passage, in so far that else-
where faith is represented as the gift of God."^
To say .that salvation is of grace, that is, that it is
the free gift of God, and then directly afterwards to
say, that salvation is not of ourselves, it is the gift of
^On Eph. ii. 8.
Election Stated and Proved, 93
God, certainly appears redundant. The difficulty
disappears if we take the apostle's meaning to be
that faith is the gift of God. But whatever view
may be taken of that passage, other testimonies so
expressly affirm faith to be the gift of God that
Arminian writers admit the fact. John Wesley, who
in his note on the above mentioned text says, " This
refers to the whole preceding clause: that ye are
saved through faith is the gift of God," speaks very
explicitly in his sermon on the same text, entitled
Salvation by Faith: "For by grace ye are saved
through faith; and that not of yourselves. Of your-
selves Cometh neither your faith nor your salvation.
It is the gift of God ; the free, undeserved gift, the
faith through which ye are saved, as well as the
salvation, which he of his own good pleasure, his
mere favor, annexes thereto." Charles Wesley, in
his exquisite hymn beginning, "Father, I stretch my
hands to thee" makes the sinner thus plead:
"Author of faith, to thee I lift
My weary, lonoriu,^ eyes ;
Oh, let nie now receive that gift,
My soul without it dies."
Other writers make the same scriptural and devout
acknowledgment. Here then the Arminian and the
Calvinist certainly speak the same dialect. One
would suppose that logic would constrain both to
reason thus : If faith is the gift of God, he must be-
stow it because he purposed to bestow it. As it is a
fact that he does not grant it to all, but only to some,
his purpose was an electing purpose. This logic is
irresistible, and Fletcher seemed to admit its force in
holding an unconditional election to an "initial sal-
94 Cah'inisin and Evangelical Arniinianism.
vation." The same logic, however, enforces the
holding of an unconditional election to final salva-
tion. For, if one should lose his initial salvation,
and should be restored and finally saved, his final
salvation would be conditional upon that faith which
is confessedly the gift of God. He could not be saved
initially or finally without faith, and faith is God's
free gift.
In admitting that faith is the gift of God, and that
faith conditions salvation, the Arminian admits effi-
cacious grace, and is logically bound to concede un-
conditional electing grace. But this he denies. He
is therefore compelled to reconcile his doctrine that
faith is the gift of God with one of his leading posi-
tions, namely, that the sinner's unconstrained will
determines the question of his believing or not believ-
ing in Christ for salvation. Let us see how Dr.
Whedon, in his comments upon Eph. ii. 8, attempts
to effect the difficult reconciliation. "Faith," he
says, "is indeed empowered in us by the grace under-
lying our probation ; but that faith freely exercised
by us, and seen by God, is the underlying condition
of our election in time ; and foreseen by God, is the
underlying condition in our eternal election before
the foundation of the world." ^
This then is the explanation. Faith is distin-
guished as power and exercise of power. God gives
the power to believe, but the sinner himself must
actually believe. Faith is a potentiality which may
or may not be exerted. There is, of course, some
ground in common here betwixt the Arminian and
'"■ Dr. James Strong emphasizes the same distinction between the
power to believe and its exercise.
Ekction Stated and Proved. 95
the Calviiiist. The latter no more holds than the
former that God believes in Christ in order to be
saved. It is the sinner himself whoso believes. Bnt
he contends that in bestowing- the principle of faith
npon the sinner, God also determines him to believe.
The principle never slumbers as a mere potentiality —
a simple capacity to believe. Here the difference be-
tween the parties emerges into view. The Calvinist
contends that God gives the sinner to believe ; the
Arminian, that God only gives him the power to be-
lieve, and that the sinner is free to use or not to use
that power. In the last analysis, it is his own will
that must determine the question whether or not he
will employ the power and actually believe, and so it
is his own will, as Dr. Raymond, Dr. Whedon and
Dr. James Strong frankly assert, which determines
the question of personal salvation. In the case of
every actual believer in Christ there must come a
critical, a supreme moment when the power to be-
lieve is consciously exercised. The Arminian holds
that at that moment it is not God who by his effica-
cious q^race determines the sinner to exercise faith,
but the sinner who by the free, elective power of his
own will, undetermined by a supernatural influence,
determines himself to believe. This is clear, for by
the same free election of his will he may determine
not to believe. This, together with the doctrine of
Universal Atonement, is the key-position of the Ar-
minian system — the Carthage which must be de-
stroyed, or the system stands. In this discussion,
therefore, the attack will be made persistently, re-
peatedly and from every quarter, upon that strong-
hold. Hence no apology is made for a return again
96 Calvinism and Evangelical Armiiiianism.
and again to the consideration of this question. Just
at this point the argument is urged from the nature
of faith as a product of divine, supernatural influence.
The disjunction between faith as a potentiality and
as an actual enero-v is inadmissible.
In the first place, it cannot be adjusted to the plain
teachings of the Scriptures which have been adduced.
The Lord Jesus says that all whom the Father gave
him shall come to him — that is, shall believe in him.
It is not optional with those thus given by the
Father to the Son to be redeemed whether they will
or will not exercise the power to believe: the plan of
salvation, the gfift of the Father, the enq:ao^ements of
the Son, require the actual exercise of faith. How
otherwise could the Son declare that not one of those
given to him should be lost? There is not a feeble
ewe or a tender lamb that will be missing, when
upon the list of the Lamb's book of life he renders
an account of the flock which was committed to him
to be saved from sin and Satan, death and hell.
Luke says that as many of the Gentiles at Antioch as
were ordained to eternal life believed. In regard to
this passage the doctors differ: each has his own
remedy and the consultation comes to naught. Ben-
gel and Wesley take the word "ordained" to refer
to a present operation of grace through the preached
gospel. The former says the ordination must be ex-
plained of "the present operation of grace through
the gospel."^ The latter says: "St. Luke does not
say fore-ordained. He is not speaking of what was
done from eternity, but of what was then done,
through the preaching of the gospel. He is describ-
^ Prcsscnteni graticT opcrationcin per evangeliiun.
Election Stated and Proved. 97
ing that ordination, and that only, which was at the
very time of hearing it. Dnring this sermon those
believed, says the apostle, to whom God then gave
the power to believe. It is as if he had said, 'They
believed, whose hearts the Lord opened;' as he ex-
presses it in a clearly parallel place, speaking of the
same kind of ordination.'" There are but two re-
marks which it is necessary to make concerning this
interpretation : first, that as the inspired historian
distinctly says the Gentiles mentioned did actually
believe, the concession that this was effected by the
operation of grace explodes this distinction between
the power and the exercise of faith; secondly, that if
it be admitted that* God operated to determine these
Gentiles to exercise faith— and that is admitted— he
must have eternally purposed so to operate; and un-
conditional election follows. No wonder that the
metaphysical mind of Dr. Whedon refuses to accept
this extraordinary testimony of Bengel and Wesley
to the Calvinistic doctrine.
The learned divine just mentioned gives an inter-
pretation which is perfectly consistent with tlie dis-
tinction between the power to believe and actual
believing. It is that these Gentiles, Luke meant to
say, were pre-disposed to eternal life and so de-
termined themselves to believe. The exposition is so
remarkable that it will be given entire: "Ordained
to eternal life — should be rendered, disposed to
eternal life. It plainly refers to the eager predisposi-
tion just above mentioned in the heart of many of
these Gentiles on learning that old prophecy pro-
claims a Messiah for them. As many as were so in-
7 ^ Notes in loc.
98 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism,
clined to the eternal life now offered committed
themselves by faith to the blessed Jesus. Rarely has
a text been so violently wrenched from iis connec-
tions with the context, and strained beyond its mean-
ing for a purpose, than has been this clause in support
of the doctrine of predestination. There is not the
least plausibility in the notion that Luke in this
simple history is referring to any eternal purpose pre-
destinating these men to eternal life. The word here
rendered ordained usually signifies placed, positioned,
disposed. It may refer to the material or to the
mental position. It is a verb in the passive form, a
form which possesses a reciprocal active meaning ;
that is, it frequently signifies an cfction performed by
one's self upon one's self Thus, in Rom. ix. 22,
*The vessels of wrath fitted to destruction' are care-
fully aflBrmed, even by predestinarians, to be fitted by
themselves. Indeed, the very Greek word here
rendered ordained is frequently used, compounded
with a preposition, in the New Testament itself, in
the passive form with a reciprocal meaning. Thus,
Rom. xiii. i, 'Be subject unto the higher powers'
is literally, place yourselves under the higher powers.
So, also, Rom. viii. 7 ; i Cor. xvi. 16 ; Jas. iv. 7, and
many other texts. The meaning we give is required
by the antithesis between the Jews in verse 46 and
these Gentiles. The former were indisposed to
eternal life, and so believed not ; these were predis-
posed to eternal life, and so believed. The perma-
nent faith of the soul was consequent upon the
predisposition of the heart and the predetermination
of the will." ^ In regard to this exposition I remark:
^ Comra. on x\cts, xiii. 48.
Election Stated and Proved. 99
First, the learned coinmeiitator does not say any-
thing in respect to the sonrce of this predisposition.
If he meant that it was natnral, the position is
Pelao-ian. If, that it was the prodnct of snpernatnral
grace, that is, the gift of the power to believe, he
wonld speak inconsistently with himself, for he says
that "the permanent faith of the sonl was consequent
upon the predisposition." A permanent faith must,
as a state, antecede acts of faith and would be the
power to believe — predisposing to the exercise of
faith.
Secondly, the predisposition of these heathen to
receive the gospel and their facile determination to
believe in Christ would have been an astonishing
exception to the facts of universal observation.
There certainly is no parallel to their case in the
history of modern missions. These heathen of
Antioch were extremely peculiar. The presumption
derived from missionary experience is powerfully
against Dr. Whedon's hypothesis of the marvellous
readiness of these Gentiles to embrace the Gospel.
To say that God's grace made the exception would be
to occupy Calvinistic ground. To suppose a miracu-
lous influence would amount to the same thing, since
the miracle would have been one of grace.
Thirdly, the assertion of the possession by these
pagans of a self-determining power of the will in a
state of sin and in relation to spiritual things involv-
ino; the salvation of the soul, if Dr. Whedon's con-
struction of his theological system be correct, leaves
no room to doubt that in this respect that system
embraces as one of its distinctive characteristics an
element common to Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians.
lOO Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianis77i.
"They all agree," says John Owen, "that it is ab-
solutely in the power of the will of man to make use
of it [grace] or not, that is, of the whole effect on
them, or product in them, of this grace communicated
in the way described ; for notwithstanding anything
wrought in us or upon us thereby, the will is still
left various, flexible and undetermined."^ This fact
ought to challenge the attention of God's true people
in the Arminian communions. There is evidently a
growing tendency to attach more importance than
Wesley did to the doctrine that the will of the sinner
determines the question of practical salvation. The
doctrine is palpably opposed alike to the plain teach-
ing of the Word of God, and the experience of those
w^ho know their own natural impotence and the
power of converting grace. It would seem that such
evangelical writers as Bengel and Wesley preferred to
shun the whirlpool of Dr. Whedon's view, even if
they ran the danger of striking upon the rock of the
Calvinistic.
Another interpretation of this passage in Acts is
that of Meyer. "^ He says that these Gentiles at
Antioch were not ordained — ordinati^ but destined —
destinati^ to eternal life ; and that the destination
was conditioned upon the divine foresight that they
would become believers — credituros. This interpre-
tation is open to two objections. First, the distinc-
tion between an eternal ordination and an eternal
destination might have been visible to the "optics
sharp" of the astute German, but not to the eye of
common sense. It is a trivial distinction. Secondly,
^ IVorks, vol. iii. p. 308, Goold's Ed., 1852.
^ Comm. on Acts.
Election Stated a?td Proved. loi
if the Gentiles at Antioch were destined by God, in
conseqnence of his foresight of their faith, to eternal
life, every one of them was, of conrse, saved. The
conseqnence refntes the interpretation to the Ar-
minian, who wonld otherwise have been naturally led
by the analogy of his system to adopt it. He wonld
accept the destination to eternal life of all who are
foreknown to persevere in faith to the end, but not
of those who are only foreknown to accept by faith
an initial salvation, and that is all the record war-
rants us in holding concerning the conscious acts of
these Gentile believers at Antioch. Meyer is one-
lialf Arminian, one quarter Calvinist, and the remain-
ing quarter siii generis : Arminian, in that he holds;
the foresight of faith to condition the divine purpose
to save; Calvinist, in that the divine purpose ensures
the final salvation of those who believe in the first
instance; and Meyerite, in that he holds that the
divine purpose destines believers, but does not ordain
them, to eternal life. But what matter? He is not
a slave to a dogmatic system ; he is a free exegete !
He is at liberty to make one passage of Scripture
contradict another! Must Scripture be shackled by
dogmatic theology? Meanwhile ordinary believers
will think the Bible, like its God, consistent with
itself It is Arminian throughout or Calvinistic
throughout. The old question still remains, which?
These conflicting witnesses damage each other's
testimony. The plain meaning of the inspired his-
torian is, that God purposed that these Gentiles
should actually believe in Christ and that through
their faith they should be eternally saved.
Paul, in Philippians, declares that it is given to us
102 Calvinism and Erano'clical Anninianisiu.
to believe on Christ. The evasion is nothing worth,
that he speaks of tliose who are already believers.
For if the continued exercise of faith be a divine gift,
so must its first exercise have been. He says, in
Colossians, that we are risen with Christ through the
faith which God operates in us. If we be actually
risen with Christ, we must have actually believed in
him. The resurrection and the means are both di-
vinely wrought in us. The apostles prayed to Jesus
to increase their faith — both the principle and its
fruit. He alone who could increase both could give
both. Some believe, says Paul, in i Corinthians, not
because of any difference in predisposing gifts, not
because thev are noble and wise and micrhtv or be-
cause they were anything at all, but because God
effectually calls them by his Spirit to believe. But
why particularize? The doctrine explicitly deliv-
ered, concerning the regeneration by supernatural,
new-creating, life-giving grace of the spiritually dead,
makes it plain enough for the blind to see and the
deaf to hear and the dumb to confess, that faith in
Christ both in principle and in exercise is the free
gift of God, according to the eternal purpose of his
merciful will.
In the second place, the position that faith is the
gift of God merely as a power and not as an exercise
of power is out of harmony with the views of Wesley
himself. He held that God in giving salvation — as a
present fact — gives faith. It is an indispensable con-
dition of the salvation gratuitously bestowed. But if
we are actually saved by grace, it follows that by
grace we actually believe.
In the third place, evangelical faith which, as a
Election Stated and Proved. 103
power, is confessed to be a divine gift implies the
possession of spiritual life— that is, a holy life siiper-
natnrally imparted. With one who denies this there
can be on the question before us no debate : he flatly
denies the Scriptures. But every principle of life,
whether natural or spiritual, enters into and vitalizes
every part and faculty of the being in which it in-
heres. It must by virtue of a spontaneous necessity
express itself in the will as well as in every other
faculty. To say that one may have, and continue to
enjov, natural life and that he might by the election
of his will refuse to perform the spontaneous functions
appropriate to it— to breathe, to eat, for example,
would be to speak unintelligibly. Certain special
acts he may resolve or decline to do, but the main
functions he cannot decline to perform. He must in
some way express the power resident in the principle
of life. That it is competent to the will to resolve
not to express it at all is simply out of the question.
In like manner he who possesses spiritual life must
give expression to it in some functions appropriate to
it. It is not within the ability of the will absolutely
to suppress its manifestation. The supposition is im-
possible, that the will, as an element of the renewed
and holy nature, could choose not to express the
spontaneous tendencies of the spiritual life. That
life flows into the will and impresses upon it the very
law of its spontaneity. The will thus spiritually
vitalized may elect between holy acts, but that it
should elect not to perform any holy act whatsoever
— that is inconceivable. A spiritually living will
must expi-ess by its decisions, in some form, a spiritu-
ally living nature, a nature consisting of the will
I04 Calvinism and Evajtgelical Arminianism.
itself as well as the intellect and the feelings, — ninst,
I say, not by the compulsion of an external force, but
by the holy spontaneity resident in itself. The adult,
who is born again of the Holy Ghost, as certainly
turns, in obedience to the instincts of his new nature,
to Jesus Christ for salvation, and actually and con-
sciously believes in him, as the new-born infant turns,
in conformity with its natural instincts, to the fount-
ain of nourishment in its mother's breast. No more
could he by an act of will refuse to do this and con-
tinue to live spiritually, than could a man decline to
eat and maintain his corporeal life. In fine, if the
supernatural gift of the power to believe in Christ has
been conferred on one, and he consequently possesses
a spiritually living principle, he will by a ''happy
necessity " of spontaneous action choose actually to
believe in Christ. He cannot, as a renewed man,
choose not to believe. His will has an elective affin-
ity for Christ which must express itself by the act of
faith in him. The element of sin still remaining in
him may protest and resist, but cannot prevent the
action of the renewed will.
It is true that there is a habit or state of faith in
the Christian man which is distinguishable from the
special acts or exercises of faith, but that state in-
volves acquiescence in the plan of salvation and trust
in Christ ; and it can never be forgotten that such a
man could not, by a deliberate decision of his will,
refuse to believe in his Saviour.
The question of the self-determining action of the
will in regard to the actual ex.ercise of faith in Christ
will meet us again in the course of the discussion.
At present it is sufficient to have established the posi-
Election Stated and Proved. 105
tion that faith is a result of election, and therefore
cannot be a condition of it.
Thirdly^ A holy disposition and good works are
not conditions, but results, of election.
Isa. xxvi. 12: "Lord, thou wilt ordain peace for
us: for thou hast wrought all our works in us."
Acts V. 31: "Him hath God exalted with his
right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give
repentance to Israel."
Rom. viii. 29: "Whom he did foreknow, he also
did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his
Son."
Rom. ix. II. "For the children being not yet
born, neither having done any good or evil, that the
purpose of God according to election might stand,
not of works, but of him that calleth."
Eph. i. 3, 4: "Blessed be the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all
spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Clirist: ac-
cording as he hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world, that we should be holy and
without blame before him in love."
Eph. ii. 10: "For we are his workmanship, cre-
ated in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God
hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
Phil. ii. 12, 13: "Work out your own salvation
with fear and trembling. For it is God which
worketh in you both to will and to do of his good
pleasure."
2 Thess. ii. 13: "God hath from the beginning
chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the
Spirit and belief of the truth."
2 Tim. i. 9: "Who hath saved us and called us
io6 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisni.
with an holy calling, not according to our works,
but according to his own purpose and grace, which
w^as given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."
I Pet. i. 2: "Elect according to the foreknowl-
edge of God the Father, through sanctification of
the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the
blood of Jesus Christ."
The consideration of those passages in this collec-
tion in which foreknowledge is connected with
election is reserved until the direct proof-texts cited
in favor of conditional election shall be examined.
The other passages are so definite in asserting that
holy obedience is the fruit and not the condition of
election that they must be twisted to make them
teach anything else. Wesley and Whedon, in order
to escape the force of the testimony in the fifth
chapter of Acts distinguish between the giving of
repentance and the giving of forgiveness. Forgive-
ness is a direct gift, but as man must himself repent
it is the power to repent which is given. Whedon
remarks: "Repentance, being a human act, can
hardly be said strictly and simply to be given, and
therefore it would seem that it is the privilege or
power of repentance which is here meant." /NotX
only the Holy Spirit, but even Meyer is against him J
here.l He says: "Nor merely the impulse and occa-
sion given . . . Against this view may be urged the
appended 'and forgiveness of sins,' which is not
compatible with that more free understanding of ' to
give.'" That is to say, the gift of repentance and
that of forgiveness stand on the same foot. One is
oiven in the same wav as the other.
It must not be overlooked that there is a wide and
Election Stated and Proved. 107
a narrow sense of the term repentance. In theologi-
cal usage it has now come to be synonymous with
penitence — grief for and hatred of sin, and a sincere
turning from it to God. But in the New Testament
it is usually employed in a broad, generic sense
equivalent to conversion, including the new birth, ^
faith in Christ and penitence. This is the sense in ^
which Peter in his pentecostal sermon used it, when,
in response to the inquiry, ''Men and brethren, what
shall we do?" he said, "Repent and be baptized."
Only in this way can his answer to these inquirers ^^
concerning the way of salvation be harmonized with
the more specific direction of the Lord Jesus under
similar circumstances: "This is the work of God
that ye believe on him whom he hath sent;" and of
Paul and Silas to the convicted jailer at Philippi :
" Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved." They put faith forward, as the first duty of
the sinner. Peter could not have meant to put for-
ward penitence as the first duty ; he must have in-
tended to say: Be converted — be born again, believe
in Christ and turn from your sins, with sorrow for
them, unto God. From this Scriptural point of
view, repentance must be regarded as given of God —
as a change operated in the sinner by supernaturally
communicated grace. And as what God does in
time, he must have eternally purposed to do, conver-
sion as embracing faith and penitence cannot be con-
ceived as both an effect and condition of election.
The testimony in Eph. i. 4 is indisputable. Ar-
minians are compelled to evade it. For example,
Wesley says upon the text : " ' As he hath chosen us'
— both Jews and Gentiles, whom he foreknew as
io8 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianisin.
believing in Christ." That is, he chose us because
he foreknew that we would be holy. But Paul says
just the opposite : he chose us that we should be
holy. So clear is the affirmation that holiness is the
effect of election, that even Meyer and Ellicott both
acknowledge that the Greek infinitive rendered "that
we should be" is one of intention — in order that we
should be holy. Eph. ii. lo is equally incontestable,
as showing how the divine election accomplishes
holiness. God, having elected us in order that we
should be holy, creates us, as his workmanship, anew
in Christ Jesus, to the end that we should do good
works. Ellicott insists upon the telic force of the
last clause. The two passages taken together make
it as plain as day to the humble inquirer into the mind
of the Spirit, that holy obedience is the fruit and not
the condition of election.
Fourthly^ Perseverance to the end in faith and holy
obedience is not a condition but a result of election.
Ps. cxxxviii. 8: "The Lord will perfect that
which concerneth me ; thy mercy, O Lord, endureth
forever : forsake not the works of thine own hands."
Ps. Ixxxix. 19, 20, 28, 30-35 : "Then thou spakest
in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help
upon one that is mighty ; I have exalted one chosen
out of the people. I have found David my servant ;
with my holy oil have I anointed him . . . My
mercy will I keep for him forevermore, and my cov-
enant shall stand fast with him. ... If his children
forsake my law and walk not in my judgments ; if
they break my statutes and keep not my command-
ments ; then will I visit their transgression with the
rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless
Election Stated and Proved. 109
my loving--kindness will I not utterly take from him,
nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will
I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of
my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I
will not lie unto David."
Ps. xciv. 18: "When I said, My foot slippeth, thy
mercy, O Lord, held me up."
Lsa. xlix. 15 and liv. 8, 10 : "Can a woman forget
her sucking child, that she should not have compas-
sion on the son of her womb? Yea, they may forget,
yet will I not forget thee." "In a little wrath I hid
my face from thee for a moment ; but with everlasting
kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord
thy Redeemer. . . . For the mountains shall depart,
and the hills be removed ; but my kindness shall not
depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my
peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on
thee."
I\Iic. vii. 20: "Thou wilt perform the truth to
Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast
sworn unto our fathers from the days of old."
Matt. XXV. 34: "Come, ye blessed of my Father,
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world."
Lk. xii. 32: "Fear not, little flock, for it is your
Father's good pleasure [purpose] to give you the
kingdom."
John vi. 37-40, 44-47 : '^ All that the Father giveth
me shall come to me ; and him that cometh to me I
will in no wise cast out. For I came down from
heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him
that sent me. And this is the Father's will which
hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I
no Calviiiisni and Evanoclical Arniinianisin.
<:>
should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at
the last day. And this is the will of him that sent
me, that every one which seeth the Son, and b^-
lieveth on him, may have everlasting life: and I wall
raise him up at the last day." "No man can come
to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw
him : and I will raise him up at the last day. . It is
w^ritten in the prophets, x\nd they shall be all taught
of God. Every man tlierefore that hath heard, and
hath learned of the Father, conieth unto me. Not
that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is
of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I
say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlast-
ing life."
John X. 11-16, 26-30: "I am the good shepherd:
the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. For
he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose
own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and
leaveth the sheep, and fleeth : and the wolf catcheth
them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth,
because he is an hireling, and careth not for the
sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my
sheep, and am kuowui of mine. As the Father
knoweth me, even so know I the Father : and I lay
down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have,
which are not of this fold : them also I must brino-,
and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall be one
fold and one shepherd." "But ye believe not, be-
cause ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me : and I give unto them eternal life ; and
they shall never perish, neither shall any (man) pluck
them out of my hand. My Father which gave them
Election Stated and Proved. iii
me, is greater tlian all ; and no man [none] is able to
pi nek them ont of my Father's hand. I and my Fa-
ther are one."
John xvii. ii : "Holy Father, keep throngh thine
•own name those whom thou hast given me."
Acts ii. 47 : "And the Lord added to the church
daily such as should be saved [saved ones]."
Rom. V, 8-IO : "God commendetli his love toward
us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for
us. I\Iuch more then, being now justified by his
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
For if, when we w^ere enemies, we were reconciled to
God by the death of his Son, much more, being
reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."
Rom. viii. 38, 39: "For I am persuaded that
neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities,
nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall
be able to separate us from the love of God which is
in Christ Jesus our Lord."
I Cor. i. 4, 8 : "I thank my God always on your
behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by
Jesus Christ . . . Who shall also confirm you unto
the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our
Lord Jesus Christ."
Eph. ii. 4, 5 : "But God, who is rich in mercy, for
his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we
were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with
Christ. . . . That in the ages to come he might
shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kind-
ness toward us through Christ Jesus. "
Phil. i. 3, 6: "I thank my God upon every re-
membrance of you . . . being confident of this very
112 Calvinism and Evang^elical Arminianisni.
o>
thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you
will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."
1 Thess. V. 23, 24: "And the very God of peace
sanctify you wholly ; and I pray God your whole
spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he
that calleth you, who also will do it."
2 Tim. iv. 18: "And the Lord shall deliver me
from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his
heavenly kingdom."
Heb. xiii. 5: " For he hath said, I will never leave
thee, nor forsake thee."
I Pet. i. 3-5: "Blessed be the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abun-
dant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively
hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled,
and that fadetli not away, reserved in heaven for you,
who are kept by the power of God through faith unto
salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."
Jude I, 24, 25: "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ,
and brother of James, to them which are sanctified by
God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and
called." "Now unto him that is able to keep you
from falling, and to present you faultless before the
presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only
wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, domin-
ion and power, both now and forever. Amen."
Time would fail to enter into a particular analysis
of these passages. Taken collectively, they furnish
a great mass of proof that God will preserve his
people to everlasting life in heaven; and that his
preservation of them is due to his eternal purpose.
Elextion Stated and Proved. 113
It would be enough to establish the point before us
if they did no more — and they certainly do that —
than to prove that believers are chosen or elected
unto salvation. In the Scriptures salvation is some-
times made to include regeneration, justification,
adoption, sanctification and glorification: these are
the parts embraced in it as a whole. Sometimes
it simply means glorification — the possession of
heavenly felicity and glory as the consummate result
and crown of the whole scheme. Take it either way,
and election to salvation is election to perseverance.
The operative grace of God as the fruit of election
determines to the means and the end alike or rather
to all the parts and to the whole. If, for example,
it determined to faith as a means to a losable justifi-
cation, it would not determine to salvation. But he
that believeth shall be saved. What sort of salvation
is that which may be lost? How is he saved from
hell wdio finally sinks into it? He who is justified is
glorified. The beginning is due to predestination,
and by it is linked to the end. Every part of sal--
vation and the whole of it are referred to God's elect-
ing purpose.
The passages which have been quoted abundantly \
prove that faith, good works, and perseverance in
the same to the end are not conditions, but results,
of election. In eternally predestinating the glorifi-
cation of his people, God also predestinated the
means to the accomplishment of that end : means
which he himself purposed to employ and to deter-
mine them by his grace to use.
And to these testimonies is now added an explicit
assertion of the fact that election is unconditional.
8
114 Calvinis7n and Evangelical Arniinianisni.
In Rom. ix. 27 and xi. 5, 6, Paul says: " Esaias also
crieth concerning Israel, Though tlie number of the
children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant
shall be saved." "Even so then at this present
time also there is a remnant according to the election
of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of
works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it
be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise
work is no more work." The mass of Israel are not
saved. Who then are saved? A remnant. How
are they saved? A.ccording to the election of grace:
therefore not according to an election conditioned by
the foreknowledge of their works. It would be vain
to say that faith is not a work. Good works are
works, and they are said to be a foreknown condition
of election. Nor will it do to say that these fore-
seen good works are not legal and meritorious but
evangelical and gracious, for they are denied to be
determined by grace and consequently affirmed to be
determined by the will of man. They are therefore
human works; and Paul sweeps away all works of
every kind from the reason of election. That reason
is grace, grace alone, the electing grace of God's
sovereio^n wilk Grace and works are contradictories.
One or the other must originate election. We must
choose between them. Paul affirms grace; God for-
bid that we should affirm works! The impossibility
of adjusting this powerful passage to the Arminian
scheme is evinced in Dr. Whedon's exposition of the
apostle's dilemma: "Grace and works, the apostle
now affirms, are a contradiction. Our faith is as free
as our works, and our works as free as our will, that
will possessing the full power in the given case to
Election Stated and Prozcd. 115
choose or refuse. If it be of compensative works,
then it is no more gratuity or grace, otherwise work
or compensation is no more compensation or work.
Each excludes the other." ^
The proof-texts which Arniinians adduce in favor
of the doctrine of conditional election, and against
unconditional, are of two kinds: direct, and indirect.
The indirect are: first, those which are cited in favor
of universal atonement ; secondly, those which are
adduced in support of the defectibility of the saints;
and thirdly, those which are alleged to assert the
possession and exercise of free will by men in regard
to salvation.
The following are the chief, if not the only, direct
proof-texts which claim particular examination:
Rom. viii. 29, 30: ''Whom he did foreknow, he
also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of
his Son, that he might be the first-born among many
brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate,
them he also called; and wdiom he called, them he
also justified: and whom he justified, them he also
glorified."
1 Pet. i. 2: "Elect according to the foreknowledge
of God the Father, through sanctification of the
Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of
Jesus Christ."
2 Thess. ii. 13: "But we are bound to give thanks
alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord,
because God hath from the beginning chosen you to
salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and
belief of the truth."
The argument from these passages is: first, that
1 Comm. on Rom.
ii6 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
foreknowledge, that is, prescience, is represented as,
in the order of thought, preceding predestination or
election : election is according to foreknowledge ;
secondly, that election is said to be conditioned upon
faith, holy obedience and perseverance in the same.
Let us in the first place hear what lexicographers,
and commentators who are not Calvinistic, have to
say upon these texts. The words, in the passages
from Romans and First Peter, which are of critical
importance, are "did foreknow" — ^rpof^vw, and "fore-
knowledge"— -poyvuaiv, botli from the same root.
Schleusner says: "(4) ut simplex yivuaKu, amo
aliquem, alicui bene volo. Rom. viii. 29, ov;- Trpoiyvu
quos Dens ab ?eterno amavit, sen, ad quos pertinent
benigna ilia voluntas divina (TrpoOeci-) cui homines
adductionem ad religionem et felicitatem christianam
debent." He censures Koppius for a different in-
terpretation, and supports his own by a reference to
divers passages of Scripture, emphasizing that in the
same epistle, where Paul says, God hath not cast
away his people whom he foreknew — Trpoiyvu, and
where the word cannot be taken in the sense of
pimple prescience.
In regard to the noun he says: "(2) per metony-
miam causae pro effectu: consiliitm^ dccretumy In
this sense he says that the word 7rpd/vwa^- is twice
used in the New Testament: Acts, ii. 23 and i Pet.,
i. 2. In the latter passage "according to the fore-
knowledge of God the Father" means according to
the most wise and benignant counsel (consilio) of
God wdiereby they were made Christians (Christianis
factis)."
Cremer makes the terms "foreknow" and "fore-
Election Stated and Proved. 117
knowledge" equivalent to God's self-determination
to unite^'himself in fellowship with human beings.
This self-determination corresponds with election, the
difference, however, obtaining between them that the
self-determination which is abstracted from particular
objects is expressed in election which designates those
objects. He says: '^^To foreknow' therefore corre-
sponds with 'to elect before the foundation of the
world,' which in Eph. i. 4, precedes 'to predestinate,'
just like 'foreknew' in Rom. viii. 29. ^Foreknowl-
edge,' however, essentially includes a self-determma-
tio^^i \o this fellowship on God's part (Rom. viii. 29,
'with whom God had before entered into fellowship');
whereas ' election ' merely expresses a determination
directed to the objects of the fellowship; cf. i Pet.^ 1.
2: 'elect according to the foreknowledge of God.' "
Cremer's view is peculiar, but it rejects the interpre-
tation which makes foreknowledge in these passages
equivalent to mere pre-cognition.
Upon I Pet. i. 2, he remarks: '"Elect according
to the foreknowledge of God' denotes the foreor-
dained fellowship between God and the objects of his
saving counsels; God's self-determination to enter
into the fellowship with the objects of his^ sovereign
counsels, preceding the realization thereof."
In this very chapter in i Peter the word has the
force of fore-ordination, verse 20: "Who [Christ]
verilv was foreordained— :^/^of}^'^><^/'^^^'^- before the foun-
dation of the world;" upon which Glassius in his
PhilologicF- SacrcE sa)-s: "hoc est, aeterno Dei decreto
ordinatus in victimam pro peccatis hominum offer-
endam."
I will refrain from citing the opinions of commen-
ii8 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianisni.
tators in regard to Rom. viii. 29, for the reason that
both Calvinists and Arniinians differ amonq^ them-
selves as to the precise meaning of the foreknowledge
mentioned in that verse and its connection with the
predestination of which the apostle there speaks.
The views of some, who are not professed Calvinists,
upon I Pet. i. 2 wull be furnished.
Dr. Fronmiiller, the expositor of the Epistles of
Peter in lyange's commentary thus interprets the
verse: "'According to the foreknowledge of God'
should be connected with 'elect': it denotes not
mere prescience and pre- cognition, the object of
which is indeed not mentioned, but both real dis-
tinction and fore-decreeing." Dr. Mombert, the
translator, adds this from Grotius: "Foreknowledge
here does not signify prescience but antecedent
decree {anteccdens decreticm), as in Acts ii. 23; the
same sense as in Eph. i. 4."
Dr. Huther, the continuator of Meyer's commen-
taries, remarks upon this verse: ^^TrpdyvcdGir is trans-
lated generally by the commentators as: predesti-
nation." [He refers in a note to Lyranus: proedes-
tinatio; Erasmus: prsefinitio; Gerhard: irpdOeGt- juxta
quam facta est electio; De Wette: /?ovA^ ant Tvpncopio/jo^,'^
"This is no doubt inexact, still it must be observed
that in the N. T. Tf^joyvuci^ stands always in such a
connection as to show that it expresses an idea akin
to that of predestination, but without the idea of
knowino- or of takino" coonizance beino^ lost. It is
the perceiving of God by means of which the object is
determined, as that wdiicli he perceives it to be. Cf.
]\Ieyer on Rom. viii. 29: 'It is God's being aware in
his plan, in virtue of which, before the subjects are
Election Stated and Proved. 119
destined by him to salvation, he knows who are to be
so destined by him.' It is incorrect, therefore, to
understand the word as denoting simply foreknowl-
edge. [In a note he says: "The word has not this
sitrnification in the New Testament."] This leads
to a Pelagianizing interpretation, and is met by
Angustin's phrase: eligendos facit Dens, non in-
vcnity
Rosenmiiller upon the text says: "-p(5>vwcT^c, decre-
tuni, consilium, ut Actor, ii. 23. Ad christianam igitur
religionem perductos esse ait, ex decreto et consilio
Dei Patris." He refers to Carpzov as taking the
word to be equivalent to Trpo^£<T^-
Olshausen's opinion can be clearly collected from
what he says upon Rom. viii. 29: "Here, however,
there seems to be no difference between rrpoey-vot and
7rpo6(H<Te, wdiile, too, in Acts, ii. 23; i Pet. i. 2; Rom.
xi. 2, irpoyvuai- is uscd directly for the divine will."
These authorities are not referred to as decisive, but
for the purpose of showing that the proofs of an elec-
tion conditioned upon foreknowledge, which are de-
rived from Rom. viii. 29 and i Pet. i. 2, are entirely
too doubtful to oppose to the mass of direct scriptural
testimony which has been adduced in favor of uncon-
ditional election.
But the appeal to authorities aside, it is perfectly
evident from the very structure of these texts that
election is not conditioned upon the divine fore-
knowledge of faith, holy obedience and perseverance
in the same. In Rom. viii. 29, those who are fore-
known are distinctly represented as predestined to he
conformed to Christ The predestinating decree ef-
fects that conformity; consequently it cannot be con-
I20 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisin.
ditioned upon the conformity as foreknown. Further,
it is explicitly said that it is God who, in accordance
with his predestinating purpose, calls, who justifies,
who glorifies. Does the sinner call, justify and glorify
himself? Are not these divine acts? Is it not God
who in executing his eternal purpose thus saves the
sinner?
In I Pet. i. 2, the persons addressed are expressly
said to be elect accordino: to the foreknowledo-e of
God the Father nnto obedience and sprinkling of the
blood of Jesus Christ. All holy obedience, involving
faith and the conscious reception of the benefits which
flow from the application of Jesus' blood, is ascribed
to God's electing purpose as its proximate end. It is
that nnto which the persons designated are elected.
Nor will it answer to say that election is declared to
be throngh sanctification of the Spirit. Will it be
contended that the sinner sanctifies himself in order
to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Christ?
That would be to assert that he sanctified himself in
order to his sanctification. And if it be still replied
that he must believe in order to receive the sanctifi-
cation of the Spirit, it is rejoined that, in the first
place, it is the sanctifying office of the Spirit to give
faith as Arminians concede; and, in the second place,
faith is included in the obedience unto which the
persons addressed are said to be elect and whic : tlie
sanctifying power of the Spirit produces. Otherwise
the statement would be: they believe in order to be
sanctified in order to believe. No just criticism can
extract that meaning from the inspired words of the
apostle.
On the passage in Peter, Richard Watson makes this
Election Stated and Proved. I2i
extraordinary comment : ^ " Here obedience is not the
end of election, bnt of the sanctification of the Spirit;
and both are joined with 'the sprinkling of the blood
of Jesus' (which, in all cases, is apprehended by
faith,) as the media through which our election is
effected — 'elect through sanctification of the spirit,'
&c. These cannot, therefore, be the ends of our per-
sonal election ; for if we are elected ' through ' that
sanctification of the Spirit which produces obedience,
we are not elected, being unsanctified and disobedi-
ent, in order to be sanctified by the Spirit that we
may obey : it is the work of the Spirit which produces
obedient faith, and through both we are 'elected'
into the Church of God." First, this is, in one re-
spect, as good Calvinism as could be desired. He
admits that it is the Spirit who produces faith and
obedience. This is an admission of efficacious grace.
For if it be the Spirit ^\\o produces obedient faith, it
certainly is not the determining will of the sinner
w'hich produces it. The sinner believes, but the
grace of the Spirit originates his faith. But as the
Spirit is God, and whatever God does in time he eter-
nally purposed to do, his production of faith in the
sinner was eternally purposed ; or what is the same
thing the sinner was eternally elected to believe.
Secondly, Watson argues that since one is elected
through sanctification of the Spirit involving faith
and obedience, faith and obedience are means and not
ends of election. Exactly so; except that sanctifica-
tion, involving faith and obedience, is not the means
through which election exists, but through which it
operates. The Calvinist does not make sanctification
^Theo. Inst., Vol. ii., p. 348, New York, 1S40.
122 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisni.
&>
producing faith and obedience an end of election.
The end is proximately the final salvation of the sin-
ner, and ultimately the glory of God's grace. Sanc-
tification is the elected means to that end. He misses
the mark, therefore, when he makes Calvinism regard
obedience as the end of election ; but his lano-uao-e
otherwise is perfectly Calvinistic, for it asserts that
the means through which election takes effect are pro-
duced in the sinner by the grace of -the Spirit, and of
course were eternally ordained.
Whatever then be the nature of the foreknowledge
mentioned in these texts, it cannot be that of faith
and holiness as conditions of election. That, at least,
is clear.
2 Thess. ii. 13, is adduced to prove that election is
conditioned upon faith and holy obedience. In re-
gard to this it may be urged : first, this passage puts
"sanctification" before "belief of the truth." The
words sanctification of the Spirit are often used to
signify the wdiole agency of the Spirit in producing
experimental religion, beginning in regeneration, in-
cluding the operation of faith, penitence and the dis-
position to bring forth good works, and ending in
glorification. If the Spirit exerts this renewing and
saving influence upon the sinner, it is in consequence
of God's eternal purpose that he should. Whatever
God does in time he eternally purposed to do, and, as
the Spirit is God, whatever the Spirit does in time
was eternally purposed. The supernatural operation
of the Holy Spirit and the faith engendered by it con-
stitute, according to the statement of Paul in this pas-
sage, the ordained means through which the electing
purpose of God effects the salvation of the sinner.
Election Stated and Proved. 123
If, as is most probable, the salvation to which the
apostle in this text says God chooses is final felicity and
glory, that end is not appointed without the appoint-
ment also of the means to its attainment ; and those
means are chiefly the operations of the Spirit, renew-
ing and sanctifying the sinner. To say that the sin-
ner is himself the originator of his spiritual life and
its functions, and that he by his repentance and faith
conditions the work of the Spirit in his soul, is to take
a position which is both unscriptural and irrational.
What does the Arminian gain by insisting on the
words, "///;w/^/^sanctification of the Spirit and belief
of the truth ?" If he mean that the material cause of
election is here asserted, he holds that sanctification
and faith are the cause on account of which, on the
o-round of which, God elects to salvation. But he re-
fuses formally to take that view. If he mean that
sanctification and faith are the instrumental cause of
election, he contradicts the decisive testimony of
Scripture that they are not the instrumental cause but
the effects of election. If he mean that sanctification
and faith are the instrumental cause of salvation, he
affirms exactly what the Calvinist maintains.
Here, however, there is need of an important dis-
tinction— between the condition of election, and the
conditions of salvation. Neither the work of Christ
nor the work of the Spirit is in ajiy sense a cause of
election, while they are in important senses causes of]
salvation. Christ was not the efficient or meritorious
or instrumental cause of election. He was not the
foundation of ^\^^\\.o\\— fund anient uni electionis ; but
he is the foundation of redemption-^Y/^^/^7;;/^/////w
redemptionis. He purchased redemption by his com-
124 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianisut.
plete obedience to the precept and the penalty of the
divine law, by which he satisfied justice and brought
in everlasting righteousness; and by his priestly in-
tercession he acquires the saving grace of the Holy
Ghost which as a king he imparts. His work was
thus an instrumental and meritorious cause of re-
demption. Nevertheless he was elected to the dis-
charge of this momentous work by the sovereign will
of the Father. So, neither was the work of the
blessed Spirit a cause of election, either efficient or
instrumental. In effecting the renewal and sancti-
fication of the sinner he is the proximate efficient
cause by which the electing purpose — the will of God
by which the elect are sanctified — is executed, and
in performing this office his grace is a divinely ap-
pointed instrumental cause of salvation. The differ-
ence between the cause of election and the cause of
salvation is thus made apparent.
The graces and duties of the renewed soul are in
no sense efficient or meritorious causes. In what
sense they are instrumental causes, it is important to
determine. Faith in Christ as a justif\-ing Saviour
is the instrumental cause of union \vitli him. That
is, it is a condition without which actual, in contra-
distinction to federal, union with him would not take
place. In this sense, faith is the sole condition of
salvation. It alone consciously unites the sinner to
Christ, and Christ is salvation. But in regard to
final salvation — heavenly felicity and glory — all the
graces of the Spirit and all the works of the Christian
man are instrumental causes or conditions without
which that consummate end would not, by the adult,
be reached.
Election Stated and Proved. 125
Now the point of this exposition of the means of
salvation is the a fortiori argnnient necessarily dednci-
ble from it, that if neither the work of Christ nor the
work of the Holy Spirit is an instrnmental canse or
condition of election, much less can the faith and
holy obedience of the sinner be such a cause or condi-
tion. The conditions of salvation are indispensable^
but they are in no sense conditions of election.
Secondly, the judgment of impartia*l commentators
is opposed to the Arminian interpretation of this
verse. Auberlen and Riggenbach, in Lange's series,
say: ''The iv, etc. cannot belong to u/^aTo, since the
objective purpose of free grace is not conditioned by
the subjective process in us." Ellicott observes: "The
preposition kv may be instrumental (Chrysostom, Liine-
man, al.) but is perhaps more naturally taken in its
usual sense as denoting the spiritual state /;z which the
tOxiro t\7 ou>7T]piav was realized." Webster and Wilkin-
son remark: " £1^ a}', following e/ A. indicates that their
present state, character and qualification for future
blessedness, are the effect of God's choice, involved
in it, as part of his original purpose of grace toward
them. So in i Pet. i. i, 2. Even Rosenmiiller says
in regard to the originating cause of belief of the
truth: "Deus ad salutem vos perduxit dum emendavit
vos per doctrinam Christi perfectiorem, et effecit ut
fideni haberetis religioni."
Having considered the direct scriptural proofs
adduced in support of the doctrine of conditional
election, I might pass on to the examination of the
indirect and inferential evidence furnished by the
Arminian positions in regard to the universality of
the atonement, the defectibility of the saints, and the
126 Calviiiisni and Evaii'^elical Arrninianism.
free-will of man in the spiritual sphere. But for
several reasons I propose not to launch upon that
wide sea. In the first place, the indirect proofs of
unconditional election, which may be drawn from
related doctrines of the Calvinistic system, it is not
my intention to present, and this justifies the ex-
clusion of similar proofs on the Arminian side. In
the second place, anything like an adequate consid-
eration of that class of proofs would swell this dis-
cussion bevond the limits which it is desio;ned to
bear. In the third place, the topics coming within
the scope of that kind of proof have been for cen-
turies handled in systems of theology and contro-
versial treatises, and their treatment here would be,
in great measure, but a re-statement of familiar
arguments. They are not peculiar to the Evangeli-
cal Arminian theology, the prominent features of
which, as a modification of the Remonstrant, it is the
chief purpose of this disquisition to examine.
The elements into which the doctrine of election
may be analyzed having been established by a direct
appeal to God's Word, the way is clear to gather them
lip into a comprehensive and definitive statement :
Election is God's eternal purpose or decree, — incited
by his mere mercy towards man considered as fallen
by his own fault into sin and misery, grounded alone
in the sovereign pleasure of his own will, uncondi-
tioned by any qualities, dispositions or acts of the
creature, and involving a peculiar love of complacency
towards its objects, — to bring certain individual men
to everlasting salvation and all the means necessary
thereto, in order to the glory of his grace.
I will conclude this part of the discussion by sum-
Election Stated and Proved, 127
niing lip the arguments opposed to the Armiiiian
doctrine, particularly emphasizing tliose relating to
the conditional nature of election, as the chief point
at issue between the parties to the controversy.
1. It is unscriptural in that it fails to make God the
sole author of election. For while it represents God
as providing the means by which the sinner may be
saved, it makes the sinner by his free will determine
himself to the saving use of those means. It is, there-
fore, really the sinner who elects God, and not God
who elects the sinner. His election of God as a Sa-
viour conditions God's election of him as saved.
2. It professes to teach the election of individuals to
salvation, but in reality denies it. For it affirms the
election only of a condition upon which individuals
may be saved, if they will to comply with it. That
condition is faith in Christ and perseverance in holi-
ness to the end. But individuals are not elected to
employ this condition : they may or may not employ
it. To say that if they do tliey are elected to salva-
tion, is to affirm a hypothethical and contingent elec-
tion, which is no election at all. It is a contradiction
in terms.
3. It is incorrect and inconsistent with itself in
teaching that election is in time.
(i.) The Scriptures positively teach that election
is from eternit}'.
(2.) Election in time could only be the temporal
execution of an eternal purpose. A so-called actual
election must correspond with that purpose and ex-
press it.
(3.) God's purpose and his prescience are unwar-
rantably confounded. God's purpose is held to be
128 Calvinism and Evano-clical Arniinianisni.
merely his prescience of an actual election to be
executed in time, as conditioned upon his prescience
of man's complying with the terms of salvation.
But purpose involves will; prescience does not. To
identify them is to pervert the accepted meaning of
the terms. This is the more remarkable, because the
Arminian contends that foreknowledge exerts no
causal influence upon events.
(4.) God's actual election in time as the only
election expressing his will is postponed nntil the
sinner perseveres in holiness to the end of life. But
it is contrary alike to Scripture and to reason to
maintain that God waits upon the acts of men in
order to decide upon his own acts. Whatever he does
in time, he must have eternally willed to do. Either
then God eternally willed to elect individuals, or no
election is possible. To this the Arminian cannot
answer, that God did eternally will an actual election
conditioned upon his foresight of the sinner's perse-
verance in holiness to the end; for in doing so, he
would deny his position that an eternal purpose of
election was nothing more than prescience, not in-
volvino; will.
(5.) The doctrine is inconsistent with itself It
affirms election to be in time. But it also virtually
affirms that it cannot be in time. For it teaches that
men ;ire only actually elected when they have perse-
vered in holiness to the end of life. It is then, only
when time has ceased that election takes effect. It is
therefore affirmed that election is in time and is not
in time !
(6.) The objects of this election are dead men. It
terminates upon men only when the contingencies of
\
Election Stated and Proved. 129
life are passed. But the Bible calls some living men
elect, and Arminians concede the fact.
(7.) The affirmation that election is in time is
equivalent to the affirmation that in time the destiny
of the elected person is fixed for eternity. Otherwise
his election means nothing. But it is also affirmed
that his election is conditioned upon his perseverance
in holy obedience to the end of time with him. Con-
sequently, his destiny cannot he fixed in time. The
destiny of the elect is fixed in time: it is not fixed in
time!
4. It is out of accord with Scripture in regard to
the ultimate end of election. It admits that the
proximate end is salvation; but it is logically bound
to deny that the ultimate end is solely the praise of
God's grace. For, the praise is due to grace for the
provision of the means of salvation, and it is due to
the elect themselves for the free determination of their
own walls to employ those means. God does not de-
termine the sinner to use the means ; the sinner
determines himself He may be grateful for the pro-
vision of the means, but gratitude for electing grace
would have no ground. His faith, good works and
perseverance bring him to heaven, but they are not
grounded in or due to election: it is conditioned upon
them. He could not sincerely praise the grace of
God for bringing him to heaven: he could only praise
it for afifording him the means of getting there.
5. It denies the electing and saving love of God,
which the scriptures abundantly assert.
(i.) It confounds the love of benevolence and the
love of complacency.
(2.) It fails to distinguish between the mercy of
9
130 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisni.
God towards a fallen race considered as out of Christ
and the peculiar, intense and inalienable love of God
towards those whom he regards as in Christ.
(3.) It makes goats the objects of the same love
with the sheep given by the Father to the Son to be
by his death redeemed and saved.
(4.) It makes the love of God secure the salvation
of none of his children. It only secures for them a
possible and contingent salvation. It is therefore
less than the love of earthly parents to their children,
for they would save their children if they could. To
say that God cannot save all his children would be
heresy deepening into blasphemy.
(5.) It makes the love of God for his people
changeable. For he cannot cherish the same love
for them when they cease to be his people by falling
away from him.
(6.) It contradicts the assertions of God^s Word —
that his faithful love to his Son will lead him never
to suffer any to perish who are bound up in the same
covenant with that Son, even when they forsake his
ways and break his statutes, that nothing shall separ-
ate them from his love, that he will never leave them
nor forsake them, that, though a mother may forget
her sucking child, he will never forget them, but save
them with everlasting mercies.
6. It makes election superfluous and useless. For
it denies that election is in order to faith and holiness
and aflfirms that it is conditioned upon perseverance in
them to the end — that is, the end of life and the at-
tainment of heaven. It follows necessarily that
when the sinner is foreknov/n to get to heaven he is
elected to get there. Where is the use of such elec-
Election Stated and Proved. 131
tioii ? One is obliged to apply to it Occaiirs razor —
the law of parsimony, that causes are not needlessly
to be multiplied for a given effect. If, tlirough the
assistance of grace and the free determinations of his
own will, a man has persevered in holy obedience to
the end and has attained to heavenly happiness, why
should a cause be invoked to ensure the result which
without it has been secured? It is inconceivable
that God would elect men to be saved in consequence
of his foreknowing that they are saved ; or that he
would have elected to save men who, he foreknew,
would by the assistance of grace save themselves.
God does nothing in vain ; but this doctrine represents
him as doing a vain thing.
7. It misrepresents the elements of the plan of
salvation.
(i.) It confounds the fruits of grace with the
means of grace. Faith, good works, and persever-
ance in the same, are fruits of grace — its products,
not its means or conditions. The means of grace are
the Word, the Sacraments, and Worship.
(2.) It unwarrantably limits salvation to heavenly
felicity, when it treats of God's destination of men;
confounds glorification — a part of salvation — with
salvation as a whole. Regeneration, justification,
adoption, and sanctification the Scriptures declare to
be as essential as glorification. Election, according
to Arminianism, is to glorification ; according to
Scripture, it is to salvation. And yet it urges the
necessity of experiencing a present salvation. How
is this inconsistency to be explained upom Arminian
principles? By distinguishing between an initial and
losable salvation on the one hand, and a final salva-
132 Calvijiism and Evangelical Arniinianisin.
tion on the other. Hence some Arminian theolo-
gians maintain a two-fold election : one, uncondi-
tional, to an initial and contingent salvation, another
to a final. But,
First, the Scriptures incontestably represent salva-
tion as a great, undivided whole, beginning in re-
generation and justification and completed in glori-
fication. It is utterly unscriptural to split it into two
parts, one contingent, the other certain; one initial,
the other final.
Secondly, the Scriptures clearly represent the
election of individuals to salvation as one, undivided
purpose. It is entirely unscriptural to effect this
schism in God's electing purpose and to make one
part of it terminate on an initial and amissible salva-
tion, and another on a final and certain. The choice
must be made between two alternatives: either no
electing purpose, or one which is not separable into
parts conditioned by the fluctuating agency of man.
Thirdly, a salvation wdiicli may be lost is no salva-
tion. There is no foundation in Scripture for the
doctrine of a merely initial and uncertain salvation.
They represent him who is saved as eternally saved.
There are two great pillars on which the certain sal-
vation of the believer rests, pillars which cannot be
thrown down by sin or Satan, earth or hell.- They
are the unchangeable purpose of God and the indes-
tructible life which the justified soul possesses in Christ.
Whom God purposes to save, he saves forever ; who
live in Christ forever live. Otherwise God purposes to
save without saving, and justifies without justifying.
According to the view under consideration, a man
may be elected to be temporarily saved who is lost at
Election Stated and Proved. 133
last — saved in time, but lost in eternity. And as one
who is temporarily saved may backslide again and
again — that is, lose his faith entirely — he may be
elected to several temporary salvations, and finally
perish. And further, since such a man may die in
faith, he must have been elected to several temporary
salvations and an eternal salvation to boot. Surely
it is not God's election which is meant, but his own.
There is little wonder that Evangelical Arminian
divines differ among themselves, some referring elec-
tion in part to an initial salvation, and others confin-
ing it to a final. The real difficulty is, that both
parties to this family feud reject God's election, which
like himself is stable, and substitute for it man's
election of himself, which, like man, is characterized
by change.
(3.) It unjustifiably confounds eternal life with
heavenly life. The Scriptures say that he who hath
the Son hath eternal life. Life, like salvation, is a
great whole, beginning in the new birth and justifica-
tion, developed in sanctification, and consummated in
glory. Election, according to x'irminianism, is to life
in heaven ; according to Scripture, it is to life in Christ.
To live in Christ is to live forever. There is a second
birth, but the Bible speaks nowhere of a third birth.
He who is born again is born once for all into God's
family, a child of the Father, a brother of the Son,
and an heir of glory — a joint-heir with Christ, not to
a contingent and perishable inheritance, but to an in-
heritance incorruptible, undefiled and that fadeth not
away, reserved in heaven for those who are kept' by
the power of God ^ through faitli unto salvation.
(4.) It denies, what the Scriptures unequivocally
134 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
assert — the bondage to sin and Satan of the will of
the unregenerate sinner. For, as will hereafter be
shown, it affirms the power of the natural will, as
such, to use imparted grace which is alleged to be
sufficient but not regenerating.
(5.) It denies what the Scriptures plainh^ teach —
the life-giving act of the Holy Spirit in regeneration
as initiating the sinner's experience of salvation. For
it makes repentance precede and condition regenera-
tion, unscripturally regards regeneration as a "work,"
in which the sinner actively co5perates with the Spirit,
and so is palpably and confessedly Synergistic.^
(6.) It makes assurance of salvation a solecism. To
distinguish between the assurance of salvation and the
certification by the witness of the Spirit of salvation
is vain. They mean the same thing. To speak of
the certification of being saved at present as the same
with the certification of being saved is, I say, a sole-
cism ; for it amounts only to a certification of a reprieve
and furnishes no guarantee against a final doom.
This is not the doctrine of the Scriptures. They
represent the assurance of final salvation as attainable.
"Oh that my words were now written!" exclaimed
Job, the type and exemplar of a suffering faith, "oh
that they were printed in a book! That they were
graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for-
ever!" The passionate fervor and profound solem-
nity of the exordium redeem the "words" from every
rationalistic interpretation which would disembowel
them of their grand redemptive significance. What
are the words so magnificently introduced? "For I
know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall
' liaymond, Syst. T/ieo!. vol. ii. p. 355.
Election Staled and Proved. 13.5
stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though
after niv skin worms destroy this body, yet in my
flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself,
and mine eves shall behold, and not another; thou-h
mv reins be consumed within me." "He shall re-
deem Israel," chanted the precentor of the Church
in her songs of praise, "from all his iniquities."
"Though I walk in the midst of trouble, thou wilt
revive me: thou shalt stretch forth thine hand
against the wrath of mine enemies, and thy right
hand shall save me. -^ The Lord will perfect that
which concerneth me : thy mercy, O Lord, eudureth
forever: forsake not the works of thine own hands."
"For we know," cried Paul, the battle-scarred vet-
eran of the Cross, "that if our earthy house of this
tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of
God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the
heavens." " Wherefore"— what? let us live as we
list, because we are sure of a home in heaven?—
"wherefore, we labor that whether present or absent
we may be accepted of him." "Now," argues the
same glorious apostle, "is our salvation nearer than
when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is
at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of dark-
ness, and let us put on the armor of light." From
his Roman prison he utters this language of triumph-
ant confidence: "I am not ashamed: for I know
whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is
able to keep that which I have committed to hini
ao-ainst that day"— the sacred deposit of my dying
body, and mv undying soul with its eternal weight
of interests. Believers may know their election:
"Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God."
136 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
And knowing their election, they may know their
final salvation, for it is that on which their election
terminates. But the Arminian doctrine teaches that
Christ's sheep may know him, and he may know
them and call them by name, and assure them that
none shall pluck them out of his hand, and yet, at
the last, he may say to them, ''I never knew you; de-
part from me."
8. The last point that will be urged is, that it is
entirely unscriptural in maintaining that election is
conditioned upon any qualities, dispositions or acts
of man.*
(i.) We have seen from the numerous passages
collected that the Scriptures expressly teach that
election is unto faith, good w^orks and perseverance
in faith and good works to the end — that they are
the fruits of election. The conclusion is irresistible,
that they do not condition it. It is true that Watson
says: "We have no such doctrine in Scripture as the
election of individuals tinto faith. "^ It has been
abundantly shown by direct citations, that we have
such a doctrine in Scripture. The authorities are
opposed, but God's is the weightier. Watson's mis-
statement of the Calvinistic doctrine that it makes
the obedience of faith an end of election, and not
merelv a means throuoh which it effects final salva-
tion, has already been corrected; and his failure to
use I Pet. i. 2 against Calvinism — that is, against
itself — has been exhibited.
(2.) The Arminian doctrine involves the capital
mistake of making the acts of repentance and faith
in the natural sphere condition election. Men are
^ Theo. Inst., Vol. ii. p. 347, New York, 1840.
Election Stated mid Proved. 137
said by Anninian writers to be partly in a state of
grace when they receive assisting and co-operating,
or, as it is otherwise called, prevenient grace, ante-
cedently to regeneration, and consequently to be able,
in that state, to perform gracious acts.^ But, with-
out higgling about words, the real question is,
wdiether in that condition the man is born again.
No, they reply; his repentance and faith precede and
condition regeneration. So say explicitly Pope,
Ralston and RaNinond, and such was the doctrine of
Wesley. Now, if a man is not born again of the
Spirit, he is simply born after the flesh. Whatever
gracious gifts may be supposed to be conferred upon
him, he is still in the natural condition in which he
was born of his mother. He is still in his sins. So
I understand Wesley to teach. '^ Before, then, he is
born' again he repents and believes. It follows
necessarily that by faith he accepts salvation in his
natural condition, and since faith is held to be the
initial condition of election, his acts in the natural
sphere condition election. To say that the Arminian
theology maintains that before a sinner is born again
of the Holy Spirit he may do that which renders it
proper for God to elect him to eternal life may seem
to some to be a libel. Let us see.
"He," observes Mr. Wesley in his Sermon on Sal-
vation by Faith, ''that is by faith born of God sin-
neth not," etc. In his second Sermon on Faith,
from Heb. xi. i, he speaks definitely upon the point:
^Pope, Camp. Chris. Thcol., Vol. ii. p. 390.
''Sermons on The Righteousness of Faith and The Way to the
Kingdom.
138 CalvinisJii and Evangelical ^bijiiniaiusni.
"The faith of a servant implies a di\'ine evidence of
the invisible and eternal world: yea, and an evidence
of the spiritnal world, so far as it can exist without
living experience. Whoever has attained this, the
faith of a servant, ' feareth God and escheweth evil; '
or, as it is expressed by St. Peter, 'feareth God and
w^orketh righteonsness. ' In consequence of which,
he is in a degree (as the apostle observes) 'accepted
with him' . . . Nevertheless he should be exhorted,
not to stop there; not to rest till he attains the
adoption of sons; till he obeys him out of love,
which is the privilege of all the children of God.
Exhort him to press on by all possible means, till he
passes 'from faith to faith;' from the faith of a ser-
vant to the faith of a son, from the spirit of bondage
unto fear to the spirit of childlike love. He will
then have * Christ revealed in his heart' enabling
him to testify, ' The life that I now live in the flesh,
I live by faith in the Son of God; who loved me and
gave himself for nae:' the proper voice of a child of
God. He will then be ' born of God. ' ' '
]\Ir. Watson says: "Justification, regeneration and
adoption are not distinct and different titles, but
constitute one and the same title, tlirough the gift of
God in Christ, to the heavenly inheritance. They
are attained, too, by the same faith. We are 'justi-
fied by faith' and we are the 'children of God by
faith in Christ Jesus.' 'But as many as received
him, to them gave he power to become the sons of
God (which appellation includes reconciliation and
adoption) even to them that believe on his name,
which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,' or in other
Elcciinn Stated and Proved. 139
words were regenerated.'" "The regenerate state is
only entered npon at onr jnstification.'" Mr. Watson
confonnds adoption with regeneration. Faith con-
ditions adoption as it does jnstification; bnt it does
not, cannot, is not in Scripture said to, condition
regeneration. It is out of the question that one
could condition his own birth. In the passage in the
first chapter of John the power to become sons of
God is t^ovaia not (5,'ra«/r; authority or right to become
sons, which was conferred on those who having been
born of God by the powerful operation of the Holy
Ghost received Christ by faith. The order is: first,
regeneration ; secondly, faith ; thirdly, adoption.
Regeneration is in order to faith, and faith in order
to justification and adoption. To require faith in
order to regeneration is to require a living function
from the dead in order to life.
Dr. Pope is very explicit. He says : "Repentance
precedes the faith which brings salvation." ' " Faith
as the instrument of appropriating salvation is a
divinely-wTOUght belief in the record concerning
Christ and trust in his person as a personal Saviour:
these two being one. It must be distinguished, on the
one hand, from the general exercise of belief fol-
lowing evidence which is one of the primary elements
of human nature, and from the grace of faith which
is one of the fruits of the regenerating Spirit."'
Here the faith whicli appropriates salvation and is a
trust in Christ as a personal Saviour is distinguished
"^Theo. Inst., Vol. ii. p. 267.
^Co}Npendiuni Chris. Theot., Vol. ii. p. 3^4-
^Ibid., Vol. ii. p. 376.
140 Calvinism and Evangelical Arininianism.
from faith as produced by regeneration. He says
further: ''The special grace of enlightenment and
conversion, repentance and faith, it [Arminianism]
holds to be prevenient only, as resting short of regen-
eration ; but as flowing into the regenerate life." ^
Dr. Ralston is equally explicit. He observes that
Calvinists indicate "the followino^ order: i. Reoen-
eration. 2. Faith. 3. Repentance [penitence]. 4.
Conversion. Arminians think the Scriptures present
a different order on this subject. They contend that
so far from repentance and faith being preceded by
regeneration and flowing from it, they precede, and
are conditions of regeneration."^ The Calvinistic
order should not have contained conversion as a dis-
tinct element. It is generically the new birth, faith,
and repentance in the narrow sense of penitence and
turning from sin to God. The Arminian order is no
doubt accurately given.
Dr. Raymond is still more explicit. Speaking of
the sinner who "improves the common grace given to
all mankind," he says : "If he gives the Spirit free
course, his heart becomes so far changed from its
natural love of sin as to sorrow on account of sin, and
in a degree to hate it ; he is truly penitent ; has initial
godly sorrow for sin ; his will is emancipated from its
natural bondage to unbelief, and is so far invigorated
bv divine o-race as to be able to volitionate a deter-
mined purpose of amendment and of future obedience;
nay, more, he actually does volitionate saving faith.
But all this is not what theologians call regeneration.
It is antecedent to regeneration, and constitutes the
state of mind on which regeneration is conditioned.
^Ibid. vol. ii. p. 390. -Elein. of Divin., p. 347.
Election Staled and Proved. 141
Faith, tlie evidence of justification, and regeneration
are contemporaneous, not separable in consciousness,
but in the order of thought faith is first, justification
second, and regeneration third." ^
The proofs have thus been furnished that the Ar-
niinian theology involves the position that men, in
the natural sphere, before they are regenerated, con-
dition their election to salvation. For, as one who,
in the first instance, believes in Christ may persevere
in believing to the end, it is evident that the condi-
tioning of election may begin in the natural sphere
antecedently to the new birth.
(3.) The Arminian doctrine involves the following
unscriptural positions in regard to the application of
redemption: God's purpose was not savingly to apply
redemption, but to permit men to avail themselves of
redemption provided; the sinner's will and not God's
is the determining factor in the great concern of per-
sonal salvation; the principle upon which salvation is
applied is not that of grace, but of human willing;
man is, in this respect, made sovereign and God de-
pendent; the glory of salvation, as a ivhole^ is divided
between God and man; and, finally, the logical result
must be a semi-Pelagian subversion of the Gospel
scheme.
First, Arminian theologians do not, so far as I
know, take the ground that there was no divine pur-
pose in regard to the application of redemption. But
if there was some purpose, it must have been either
efficient or permissive. Arminians deny that it was
efficient, that is, that it was a purpose efficaciously to
apply salvation to individuals. Consequently, they
^Syst. Theo., vol. ii. pp. 348, 349.
142 Calvinism and Evangelicad Arininianisin.
maintain that it was permissive. But if so, God sim-
ply determined to permit men to avail themselves of
the salvation which he would graciously provide;
which amounts to this: that he determined to permit
men to save themselves upon condition of their be-
lieving; in Christ and persevering in faith and holiness
to the end.
Now, I admit with all Calvinists the existence of
some permissive decrees, but deny that this purpose
touching the application of redemption falls under
that denomination. The Arminian commits the
tremendous blunder of treating the case of Adam in
innocence, and that of the sinner, as one and the same
in relation to the divine decrees and to the ability of
the moral agent. It is true that God decreed to
permit x\dam to sin, and it is true that Adam had the
power to stand or to fall ; but it is not true, either
that God simply decreed to permit his sinful descend-
ants to be saved, or that they have the power to
choose holiness. Were the decree simply permissive,
no sinner would or could be saved. The dead man
needs something more than permission to live ; he
needs life.
The Sublapsarian Calvinist — and he is the typical
Calvinist — admits that the decree to permit the fall,
and the foreknowledge of the fall are pre-supposed
by the decrees of election and reprobation. But it is
altogether a different thing to say, with the Arminian,
that the decree to permit men to recover themselves
from the Fall, and the foreknowledge that they
would recover themselves from it, conditioned or were
pre-supposed by the decree to elect them to be saved.
On the contrary, the Scriptures teach that as men
Election Slated and Proved. 143
cannot recover themselves from tlie consequences of
the Fall, God of his mere mercy elected some of the
guilty and helpless mass to be recovered and saved,
and in pursuance of that purpose imparts to its objects
the grace which alone recovers and saves them.
Otherwise they must all have perished together.
Secondly, in rebuttal of this allegation Arminian
theologians contend that their doctrine is that sinners
are saved, if saved at all, by grace. The grace by
which it is professed that men are saved in the first
instance, that is, are empowered to accept the offer of
salvation, is, as to the order of time, called prevenient
grace — grace which operates antecedently to regen-
eration, at least to "full regeneration." "The mani-
festation of divine influence," remarks Dr. Pope,
"which precedes the full regenerate life receives nc
special name in scripture ; but it is so described as to
warrant the designation usually given to it of Pre-
venient Grace." ^ As to its nature and functions it
is variously denominated assisting, co-operating,
sufficient, grace. It has been already shown that,
notwithstanding the communication of this grace,
the decision which determines the question of prac-
tical salvation is held to be made by the sinner's will,
unconstrained by grace ; that this is the view expressly
maintained by such writers as Raymond, Whedon
and Strong. But inasmuch as it may be alleged that
these divines do not represent the views of the early
teachers of the Evangelical Arminian theology and
those of the body of Evangelical Arminians, I will
proceed to show that these able writers have grasped
^Coinp. Chris. Theol., vol. ii. p. 359.
144 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
the logic of their system, and have given expres-
sion to its legitimate conclnsion.
It will not do to say, that becanse co-operating
grace is given to all men, those who are saved do not
recover and save themselves, but are recovered and
saved by grace. For, either this co-operating grace
is the controlling and determining element in pro-
ducing recovery and salvation, or it is not. If it be
the controlling and determining element, the Armin-
ian position is relinquished and the Calvinistic con-
ceded; since, in that case, men are saved by an in-
vincible influence operating in accordance with an
electinof decree. If this o^race be not the controllinof
and determining element, the will of man is that
element. And then it follows that men recover and
save themselves by the energy of their own wills.
But that is alike unscriptural, and contrary to the
profession of Arminians themselves that men are
saved by grace.
If it be said, that, although it be true that the
final factor which determines the question of recovery
and salvation is the will of man, yet without the
assisting grace of God it could not determine the
question, and therefore men are saved by grace, it is
answered: that upon this supposition it is admitted
that the will of man may decline the assistance of
grace, or may accept it — may co-operate with it or
may not. That proves that the final determination
of the case is regarded as being in the power of the
will, and it comes to this, that in the last resort the
man saves himself It is his will which gives to the
assisting and co-operating grace any influence in
pro "ucing recovery and salvation.
Election Staled ami Proved. 145
If it be said, that neither grace nor the will of man is
the controlling- and determining element, but they are
coordinate and coequal factors, it would follow: First,
that as from the nature of the case they are antago-
nistic to each other, a perfect equipoise would result,
and no action would be possible. Between grace and
the will the man would be like the ass of Buridan be-
tween two equally attractive measures of oats. The
two forces are antagonistic, for grace tends to the pro-
duction of holiness, and the will of the natural man to
the production of sin. The consequence pointed out
must follow. Secondly, if action could be attained, it
would of necessity be equally shared by grace and the
human will; and then the man could be said to be
saved by neither. He could not be saved by grace;
he could not be saved by himself. Grace and the
human will, as they would have an equal share in the
action which saves, would have an equal share in
the glory of salvation. And so the saved sinner
would sing: To God and to myself be the glory of
my salvation! The absurdity of the consequence
refutes the supposition.
If, further, it be said, that the natural will is,
"without the power to co-operate with the divine in-
fluence, but the co-operation with grace is of grace,"'
and in this way it becomes apparent that the sinner is
saved by grace; it is replied: First, in order to co-
operation the influences co-operating with each other
must be distinct, the one from the other, and this
would necessitate the view that grace of one sort or
in one aspect co-operates with grace of another sort or
in another aspect. But grace is one, and to divide it
^Pope, Comp. Chris. TheoL, vol. ii. p. 80.
10
146 Calvinisin and E-jangclical Anjiuiia/iisjJi.
thus into two distinct parts or aspects is wholly
unwarrantable. The division is an arbitrary one
adopted to justify a theory. Secondly, the suppo-
sition represents grace inside of the will co-oper-
atinof with o-race outside of it. But if it be admitted
that in the first instance grace may be an inducement
to action presented to the will, yet when the will to
any extent appropriates the inducement, by that ap-
propriation the inducement passes into the will itself
and is assimilated into its spontaneity. It ceases to be
external to the will and becomes internal to it. The
motive agency of grace then operates within the will
itself, and co-operation of grace with grace would be
the co-operation of an inducement absorbed into the
will with the s^me inducement, considered as still ex-
traneous to it and unabsorbed. Thirdly, grace co-
operating with grace, were such a combination of
influences possible, would, to use a homely compari-
son, be a team which would surely be able to draw
the will to action. But no, the will is the driver and
holds the reins which control the powerful combina-
tion. Even the co-operation of grace with grace can-
not determine the course of the will. Notwithstand-
ing their united influence, that sovereign faculty de-
termines its own course. Fourthly, it is still the will
which determines itself to the co-operation, and makes
the co-operation decisive. This is really what is in-
tended. It is the will which is the determining factor
in the co-operation, as is apparent from the position
that the will may entirely decline to co-operate with
grace. The conclusion is that, in the last analysis, it
is not grace but the will which is the saving element.
To all this it may be rejoined, that there is no
Election Stated and Proved. i.)/
assertion of the anomaly of grace co-operating- with
grace, bnt only of the fact that the will is incited by
grace itself to co-operate with grace. The co-opera-
tion is not of grace with grace, bnt of the will with
grace. Bnt this does not relieve the difficnlty; for,
in the first place, it would be admitted that it is the
natural will, as such, which co-operates with grace;
and as that will is the deciding factor, it is it which
determines the question of salvation; and no evan-
gelical thinker could deliberately and professedly
take that ground. In the second place, grace incit-
ing the will to co-operate with grace would be grace
mediately through the will co-operating wnth grace.
The Arminian must make his election between two
alternatives both of which are damaging: either that
the will, as natural, decides to co-operate with grace
and so determines the question of salvation, which
involves heresy; or that grace co-operates with grace,
which involves absurdity.
If, finally, it be said, that although the grace is
not determining, it is sufficient, grace: that is, suffi-
cient to enable the sinner's wnll to determine the
question of his recoveny and salvation; it is answered:
First, sufficient grace would necessarily be regen-
erating grace. For, grace which would be sufficient
to enable the spiritually dead sinner — and Evangeli-
cal Arminians acknowledge him to be by nature
spiritually dead — to perform a function of spiritual
life, believing in Christ, for example, must be grace
which gives life. But grace which gives life is re-
generating. Now,
Secondly, regenerating grace is necessarily irresist-
ible and determining grace. Regenerating grace
148 Calvinism and Evangelical Aruiinianisni.
produces the new birth, and no one can resist his own
birth. "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must
be born again." Regenerating grace produces a re-
surrection to spiritual life, and no one can resist his
own resurrection. "If ye then be risen with Christ,
seek those things which are above." Regenerating
grace new-creates the soul, and no one can resist his
own creation. ' ' For w^e are his workmanship,, created
in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath be-
•fore ordained that we should walk in them,"
But Arminians contend that grace ma}' be resisted,
and some Calvinists go too far in conceding the same,
•i^'hile they hold that it cannot be so resisted as to be
overcome. They prefer, therefore, to use the terms
invincible or insnpei^able grace. Both parties are mis-
taken. Regenerating grace, from the nature of the
case, cannot be, in any degree, resisted. The dis-
tinction is lost sight of between the common opera-
tions of the Spirit, which are illuminating, and his
regenerating grace. The former are resistible, the
latter is not. The Spirit may be resisted when he
instructs the sinner in his duty and moves him to its
discharge. Nothing is more common. But to talk
of resisting the creative power of the Spirit is to speak
without meaning. As well talk of a feather resisting
a hurricane, or a straw a cataract, or a hillock of sand
a stormy sea. The sinner may be unwilling before-
hand that regenerating grace should be exercised
upon him ; but it is idle to speak of his resisting it
when it is exercised. What can resist the creative
power of God? Is it not almighty? Can finite
power resist infinite, acting infinitely? Now, regen-
erating grace is creative power. It is, therefore.
Election Stated a?id Proved. 149
irresistible. There is no sense or degree in which it
can be resisted.
It has thns been shown, that sufficient grace must
be irresistible and determining grace. To call any
other kind of grace sufficient for the needs of a sinner
would imply a contradiction. It would be, as Pascal
in his criticism of the theology of the Jesuits tersely
puts it, "a sufficient grace which sufficeth not."
Again the Arminian position is given up, and the
Calvinistic established. For, irresistible and deter-
mining grace could only be received in consequence
of God's decree to impart it. And since only some
men receive that grace — for only some are regenera-
ted— the decree to confer it is proved to be an elect-
ing decree; that is, a decree by which some were
elected to be regenerated. Any other doctrine in-
volves the consequence that men determine them-
selves to their own new creation, and therefore save
themselves. But how one can prepare himself for,
not to speak of determining, his own creation, it
passes intelligence to apprehend.
It is plain, in view of what has been said, that the
real question at issue between Calvinists and Armin-
ians, in relation to Election, is this: Did God decree
that he would save some men, and consequently that
he would give them grace to determine their wills?
Or, did God decree to permit men with the assistance
of grace to save themselves, and consequently that he
would leave it to their own wills finally to determine
the question of their compliance with the divinely
fore-ordained condition of salvation? That question
inevitably resolves itself into this simple one: Is God
the determining agent in actuallv saving man? Or,
150 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniiniaiiisni.
is man the determininor aoent in savino" liinisclf?
The determining agent, I say; for Arminians hold
that God provided atonement through Christ, and
gives to men the assisting and co-operating grace of
the Holy Spirit; and that, without the atonement of
Christ and the grace of the Spirit, no man could be
saved. But it is the specific difference of the Armin-
ian doctrine, so far as this question of the application
of salvation is concerned, that, in the last analysis,
J the will of man must be conceived as the determin-
ing factor. I have, therefore, fairly stated the ques-
tion at issue, as to this matter, between Calvinists
and Arminians.
But, that being the state of the question, who that
adores the Infinite God, and knows the guilt, de-
pravity and dependence of the sinner, can hesitate to
decide that, whatever may be the speculative diffi-
culties attending it, the Calvinistic doctrine is that
which consists with the teachings of Scripture and
the facts of human experience?
If God be the determining agent in the application
of salvation, it follows from the fact that only some
are actually saved that God elected them to be saved.
The doctrine of the election of individuals to salva-
tion is proved.
And if God be the determining agent in the appli-
cation of salvation, it follows, from the necessary
consequence that the will of man is not the determin-
ing agent, that election is not conditioned upon the
acts of the human will, and therefore not conditioned
upon faith and good works and perseverance in them
to the end. The doctrine of Unconditional Election
is establisiied.
Election Stated and Proved. 151
The conclnsioii of the whole matter is, that the
salvation of men from sin and misery is to be as-
cribed not to their own wills co-operating with assist-
ing grace, but to the sovereign, electing purpose of
God operating upon their wills by efficacious grace.
"It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that run-
neth, but of God that sheweth mercy."
The Arminian doctrine necessitates a conclusion
opposite to this — namely, that salvation as practically
applied is to be, in the last anah'sis, ascribed to the
will of the sinner, since it is that which determines
him to comply with the gracious influences of the
Holy Spirit. The following consequences logically
result:
In the first place, the principle upon which, in the
application of redemption, the sinner is saved, is not
grace, but the energy of the human will. The prin-
ciple upon which salvation is provided is acknowl-
edged to be grace, although we shall hereafter see
that Arminianism even qualifies its announcement of
that principle; but the ultimate and determining
principle upon which salvation is applied is, and is by
some frankly confessed to be, human willing.
In the second place, in the matter of the application
of salvation man is made sovereign and God depend-
ent. God, it is contended, is sovereign in providing
salvation, but in applying it his will is conditioned
by the acts of man's will. It is not he who decides
the question of practical salvation, but man. Hence
the decision of his will is dependent upon the decision
of man's sovereign and self-determining will. It is
no answer to say, that man is dependent on God
for the grace without which he could not appropriate
r
V
152 Calvmism and Evangelical Arminianism.
salvation. That may be so, but while he is depend-
ent on God for the supply of assisting grace, he is not
dependent on him for the use of it. In that respect
he is confessedly independent of God. He originates
action by the self-determining and therefore self-
dependent power of his own will.
In the third place, the glory of salvation, as a
whole, is divided between God and man. As God
alone provides salvation, all the glory is due to him
for the provision. But gs man is a co-efficient with
God in applying salvation, to the extent of his effi-
ciency he is entitled to the glory of the application.
As he might accept or reject the atonement, and
might use or decline to use assisting grace, his ac-
ceptance of the one and his use of the other are his
own undetermined acts, and the credit of them is his
own. He has made a praiseworthy employment of
his powers and opportunities, and the praise cannot
justly be denied him. And as it is his natural will,
undetermined by divine influence, which decides to
use grace and appropriate salvation, it is his natural
will which shares the glory with God ! To this it
may be replied, that repentance is a confession of sin
and misery and faith of weakness and want, and it
would be absurd to ascribe glory to a criminal plead-
ing for pardon and a beggar suing for help. That
would be true did the grace of God determine the
sinner to repentance and faith. But, if by the un-
determined energy of his will, he overcomes the diffi-
culties opposed by the flesh, the world and the devil,
and makes the sacrifice of himself to Christ and his
service, the praise of his conversion is due to him.
Conversion is a glorious thing. The glory for con-
Election Stated and Proved. 153
version is clue somewhere. Either it is due to grace
or to the sinner's will If it is not effected by grace
it is not due to it. If, as is contended, it is effected
by the will, to the will the glory is due. The prayers
of a pious Arminian deny this ; his theology affirms it.
In the fourth place, the tendency is inevitable to a
semi-Pelagian subversion of the gospel scheme. It
is not intended to bandy opprobrious epithets, but the
interests of truth require that the logical tendencies of
a system should be pointed out. From an early period
in the history of the Christian Church two doctrines,
in regard to the experience of salvation, have been in
conflict with each other, and have struggled for the
mastery with varying fortunes. The one is that
grace effects salvation ; the other, that free-will effects
it. Around these two doctrines grew up two con-
tending systems, which from their leading representa-
tives were denominated Augustinianism and Pelag-
gianism. Intermediate between these two, adopting
some and rejecting some of the elements of each,
arose another system, which from the fact that it first
took root at Marseilles was called Massilianism, and
from the name of its chief exponent has been denom-
inated Cassianism. In, the course of time it received
the name of Semi-Pelagianism— a name which suffi-
ciently intimated the belief that it w^as a modification
of Pelagianism, rather than of Augustinianism, and
was justified by the circumstance that it originated
as a protest against the latter system. Its charac-
teristic doctrine was the co-efficiency of grace and
free-will in producing individual salvation. Armin-
ianism, in its recoil from Calvinism, which is essen-
tially the same as Augustinianism, was a modification
154 Calvinism and Evangelical A]-niinianisin.
of Seiiii-Pelaoianisin as it had been of Pelas^ianism.
It concurred with Senii-Pelaf2:ianisni in affirmino- the
doctrines of conditional election, universal atonement
and the defectibility of the saints. The regulative
principles of the two systems were therefore precisely
the same. They were imbued with the same genius and
spirit. Of -what value, then, were their differences?
Semi-Pelagianisni maintained the existence of a de-
gree of free-will, in spiritual matters, in the nature of
man after the Fall. Arminianism holds that man
has, antecedently to regeneration, a degree of free-
will ; that, however, is not an element of nature, but
a gift of grace in consequence of the atonement of
Christ. Semi-Pelagianism taught that by virtue of
his natural free-will man may begin his conversion,
and that then the aids of grace are furnished to enable
him to complete it. Arminianism teaches that grace
operating upon the free-will which it confers stimu-
lates it to begin conversion and then assists it to
complete it. There would appear then to be a dif-
ference between the systems in regard to the begin-
ning of conversion, one holding that the natural will,
and the other, that the natural will aided by grace
begins it.
But what exactly, according to Evangelical Armin-
ianism, is the significance of this prevenient grace
which operates upon the will to induce it to seek
conversion? The answer to this question will be
furnished from two w^riters, one in the earliest period
of the system and the other in the most recent.
"x\llowing," says John Wesley, "that all the souls
of men are dead in sin by nature, this excuses none,
seeinor there is no man that is in a state of mere
Elcclioji Stated and Proved. 155
nature: there is no man, unless he has quenched the
Spirit, that is wholly void of the grace of God. No
man living is entirely destitute of what is vulgarly
called 'natural conscience.' But this is not natural:
it is more properly termed 'preventing grace.'
Every man has a greater or less measure of this,
which wai^eth not for the call of man. Every one
has, sooner or later, good desires, although the
generality of men stifle them before they can strike
deep root, or produce any considerable fruit. Every
one has some measure of that light, some faint glim-
mering ray which, sooner or later, more or less, en-
lightens every man that cometh into the world.
And every one, unless he be one of the small num-
ber, whose conscience is seared as with a hot iron,
feels more or less uneasy when he acts contrary to
the light of his own conscience. So that no man
sins because he has not grace, but because he does
not use the grace which he hath."^ "One," ob-
serves Miner Raymond, "who improves the common
grace given to all mankind, and the special privileges
providentially his, is enlightened as to the eyes of his
understanding, or as to the discriminating power of
conscience, so as to see his duties and obligations, to
apprehend his sins and his sinfulness, and to become
fully persuaded of his need of a divine Saviour and
his entire dependence upon the grace and mercy of
God."'^
What material difference is there between the two
positions? If, says the Semi-Pelagian, one, comply-
ing with the light of nature and the warnings of
^Serm. on Workiug out our own Salvation.
"" Syst. Thcol., Vol. ii, p. 348.
156 Calvinlsrii and Evangelical /[nninianisnt.
conscience, begin the work of conversion, grace will
assist him. If, says the Evangelical Arniinian, one
improve prevenient grace, that is, the light of natural
conscience, further grace will be granted to assist
him. What is the thing to be improved? The
light of natural conscience, answers the Semi-Pelag-
gian; the light of natural conscience which is pre-
venient grace, replies the Arminian. Is the differ-
ence more than nominal? What is that which does
the improving? The natural will, says the Semi-
Pelagian; the natural will, the Arminian must also
say. For, it must be either the natural will or the
will renewed by the Holy Spirit. It cannot be the
latter, for confessedly, the man is not yet renewed.
It must, therefore, be the former. But, urges the
Arminian, the will is assisted by grace. Yes, but as
the will may decline the assistance, it is the master
of the situation. For, if it decline, as grace cannot
decline the assistance of grace, it is the natural will
which declines it; and so, if it accept the assistance,
it must be the same will which accepts. But, con-
tends the Arminian further, the will is enabled by
grace. Here a demurrer must be put in. He is not
entitled to use the word enabled. For, as he admits
that the sinner in his natural condition is spiritually
dead, enabling grace would be life-giving or regener-
ating and determining grace; and without now going
into the question how far that sort of grace is en-
abling or not, it is enough to say that it is excluded
by the supposition that the sinner is not yet regener-
ated. It is evident that the two systems come very
near together in regard to the condition of the
aw^akened sinner previously to his regeneration.
E/c'clion Staled and Proved. 157
But the crucial test is the doctrine of reo-eneration.
The Semi-Pelagian system is definitely Synergistic;
it affirms the co-operation and co-efficiency of grace
and the human will in the change of conversion in-
cluding regeneration. It denies that regeneration is
an instantaneous act of God alone, and maintains that
conversion culminating in regeneration is the joint
work of man and God. The later Lutheran system is
also Synergistic, but to what extent? Luther him-
self was no Synergist. He went further than Augus-
tin and further than Calvin in asserting the sole effi-
ciency of God, as any one will be convinced by glan-
cing at his Bondage of the Will. But the Lutheran
doctrine soon went away from the views of the great
Reformer, and, absorbing gradually those of Melanch-
thon in his last utterances, became afterwards under
the influence of such men as Gerhard definitely Syner-
gistic. Its Synergism, however, is not strictly co-
operation; it is, on man's part, non-resistance and
passive consent. If one does not resist the Word and
the Spirit, God regenerates him. His non-resistance,
it is true, conditions regeneration, but the will is not
an active co-efiicient. This allusion is made to the
Lutheran doctrine in order to get by comparison a
clear conception of the Arminian. On the one hand,
the Arminian doctrine is distinguished from the Semi-
Pelagian in a two-fold way: by denying what thel
Semi-Pelagian affirms, namely, that man apart from
grace begins conversion, and by holding that regener-i
ation, although conditioned by repentance, faith andj
justification, is accomplished by God himself. It
agrees with the Semi-Pelagian in making the humai
w^ill an active co-efficient in conversion before regent
158 CalrinisDi and Evangelical Arniinianism.
eration, and the deteriiiiiiing factor in presenting the
conditions npon which regeneration is effected. It is
distingnished from the Lntheran doctrine by denying
that mere non-resistance is the condition of regenera-
tion, and maintaining that the positive co-operation
of the will with grace in repentance and faith is that
^condition. It agrees with the Lutheran in holding
that a state of the sinner's will, determined by him-
self, is a condition precedent to the regenerating act.
The Evangelical Arminian doctrine, therefore, oc-
cupies a position between the Lutheran and the Semi-
Pelagian, with a stronger affinity with the latter and
a greater tendency towards it. This is shown by the
development of the Evangelical Arminian Theology.
The Remonstrants declined tow^ards Semi-Pelagianism
as they receded from Arminins, and so the Evangeli-
cal Arminians are more and more tending towards it
as the interval widens between them and Wesley.
It may be remarked, in passing, that this recession
of the Evangelical Arminian theology from its first
position is apparent in connection with other phases
of doctrine than that immediately under consider-
ation. Wesley and Watson held that the race suffer
penally in consequence of Adam's sin. Raymond
denounces "the abhorrent doctrine of inherited obli-
gation to punishment." ^ By Wesley and Watson the
doctrine of total depravity was more strongly and
unqualifiedly asserted than it is now. Wesley allowed
the imputation of Christ's righteousness. The denial
of it was begun by Watson, and it is now emphati-
cally rejected. But it is in regard to the supreme
question in hand of the entire dependence of the poor,
^ Syst. ThcoL, vol. ii. p. 37.
Election Stated and Pro-Jcd. 159
guilty, tniserable, undone sinner upon the grace of
God for conversion that this downward tendency be-
comes as conspicuous as it is lamentable to every
lover of gospel truth. The venerable John Wesley
failed not to affirm this dependence in strong and un-
mistakable terms. Where will you find an assertion
by him of the supremacy of the sinner's will in the
great concern of personal salvation? But now we
hear it boldly and roundly declared by learned theo-
logians *'that man determines the question of his sal-
vation." These omnious words peal on the ear like
the notes of a fire-bell at the dead of night. They
mean a sure descent to a lower level of doctrine than
that of the early Evangelical Arminians. Those men
were prevented by their deep experience of grace from
using this language. But alas! they sowed the seed
which have sprung up and are now bearing the fruits
of Semi-Pelagianism. Well, it may be asked, what is
there so bad in that? What if the logical tendencies
of the system are in the direction of Semi-Pelagian-
ism? To that question this must be replied: James
Arminius did not, as Limborch afterwards did, advo-
cate that theology; John Wesley would have gone to
the stake before he Vn^ouM have confessed his approval
of it; it is one for which Jesuits have contended, and
against which pious Romanists have struggled; it is,
in some respects, less orthodox than that of Trent;
such men as Prosper, Hilary and Fulgentius treated
it as essentially Pelagian, and the ^Magdeburg Cen-
turiators afterwards did the same; in short, it denies
the supremacy of the grace of God and reduces it
into subordination to the human will, and is therefore
a subversion of tlie gospel scheme. I have sung and
i6o Calviiiism and Evangelical Arminianism.
prayed and preached with Evangelical Arminians,
and have been with them in precious seasons of
reviving grace; some of them are among my most
cherished friends, and some I have seen cross the
Jordan of death whose shoes I would have carried;
but could I get the ear of my Evangelical Arminian
brethren, I would ask their attention to those ill-
boding and alarming words issuing from high places:
''''Man determines the question of his salvation^ Do
they express the logical result of their theological
principles? If they do, is it not time to subject those
principles to a fresh examination?
Note. — The reader is referred for a very able, though necessarily
succinct, discussion of the points in this controversy by the illus-
trious Southern divine. Dr. R. L. Dabney, in hii Tlieo'.ogy : Lec-
tures XLVIIL, XLIX., on the Armiuian Theory of Redemption.
Senis in cccluui redcat.
SECTION II.
THE DOCTRINE OF REPROBATION STATED AND PROVED,
The following are the statements of the Westmin-
ster Confession of Faith, which are either indirectly
or directly concerned about the doctrine of Reproba-
tion :
'^God from all eternity did, by the most wise and
holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably
ordain whatsoever comes to pass : yet so as thereby
neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence
offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty
and contingency of second causes taken away, but
rather established.
"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his
glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto
everlasting life, and others foreordained unto everlast-
ing death.
"These angels and men, thus predestinated and
foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably de-
signed ; and their number is so certain and definite,
that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
"The rest of mankind [that is, those not elected to
life] God was pleased, according to the imsearchable
counsel of his will, whereby he extendeth or with-
holdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his
sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to
II (i6i)
i62 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniuiianism.
ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin [N.
B.], to the praise of his glorious justice.
"Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and
decree of God, the first cause, all things co:ne to pass
immutably and infallibly; yet by the same providence
he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature
of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or con-
tingently.
"The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and
infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves
in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the
first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and
that not by a bare permission, but such as hath
joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding,
and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a
manifold dispensation to his own holy ends: yet so
as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the
creature, and not from God, who, being most holy
and righteous, neither is, nor can be, the author or
approver of sin. [N. B.]
"As for those wicked and ungodly men, whom
God, as a righteous judge, for former sins, doth blind
and harden, from them he not only withholdeth his
grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in
their understandings, and wrought upon in their
hearts; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts
which they had, and exposeth them to such objects
as their corruption makes occasion for sin ; and
withal gives them over to their own lusts, the temp-
tations of the world, and the power of Satan: where-
by it comes to pass that they harden themselves,
even under those means which God useth for the
softening of others.
Reprobation Stated and Proved. 163
"Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty
and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbid-
den fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according
to his wise and holy counsel, to permit [TO PER-
MIT, be it noticed], having purposed to order it to
his own glory.
"They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of
this sin was imputed ... to all their posterity,
descending from them by ordinary generation.
"The first covenant made with man was a cove-
nant of works; wdierein life was promised to Adam,
and in him to his posterity, upon condition of per-
fect and personal obedience.
"Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable
of life by that covenant, etc.
"God hath endued the will of man with that
natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any
absolute necessity of nature determined to good or
evil.
"]\Ian, in his state of innocency, had freedom and
power to will and to do that which was good and
well-pleasing to God ; but yet mutably, so that he
might fall from it.^
"All those whom God hath predestinated unto life,
and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and
accepted time, effectually to call by his w^ord and
Spirit out of that state of sin and death, in which
^ These statements touching the first sin have been quoted, be-
cause they show the Calvinistic doctrine to be — that man's will at
first was free, neither constrained by an extrinsic nor an intrinsic
force to sin; that man had full power to stand; and, therefore,
that the reprobate were not created to sin and be damned, nor
necessitated by God to sin.
164 Calvinisvi and Evangelical Anniniaitism.
they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus
Christ, etc. . . . Others, not elected, although
they may be called by the ministry of the word, and
may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet
they never truly come unto Christ and therefore can-
not be saved. ' '
The Westminster Larger Catechism, after stating
the doctrine of election, says: '* And also, according
to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel
of his own will (whereby he extendeth or withholdeth
favor as he pleaseth) [God] hath passed by, and fore-
ordained the rest to dishonor and wrath, to be for
their sin inflicted [N. B.], to the praise of the glory of
his justice."
The following statements are extracted from the
Judgment of the Synod of Dort.
"Forasmuch as all men have sinned in Adam, and
are become guilty of the curse, and of eternal death ;
God had done wrong unto no man, if it had pleased
him to leave all mankind in sin and under the curse,
and to condemn them for sin.
" The cause or fault of this unbelief, as of all other
sins, is in no wise in God, but in man. But faith in
Jesus Christ, and salvation through him, is the free
gift of God.
"But whereas, in process of time, God bestoweth
faith on some, and not on others, this proceeds from
his eternal decree. For, from the beginning of the
world God knoweth all his works. Acts xv. 18, Eph.
i. II. According to which decree, he graciously
softens the hearts of the elect, however otherwise
hard ; and as for those that are not elect, he in just
judgment leaveth them to their malice and hardness.
Reprobation Stated and Proved. 165
And here especially is discovered unto us the deep,
and both merciful and just, difference put between
men, equally lost; that is to say, the decree of election
and reprobation, revealed in God's Word. Which as
perverse, impure and wavering men do wrest unto
their own destruction, so it affords unspeakable com-
fort to godly and religious souls.
''Moreover, the holy Scripture herein chiefly man-
ifests and commends unto us this eternal and free
grace of our election, in that it further witnesseth,
that not all men are elected, but some not elected, or
passed over in God's eternal election: whom doubtless
God in his most free, most just, unreproachable and
unchangeable good pleasure hath decreed to leave in
the common misery (whereinto by their own default
they precipitated themselves), and not to bestow sav-
ing faith and the grace of conversion upon them; but
leaving them in their own ways, and under just
judgment, at last to condemn and everlastingly punish
them, not only for their unbelief, but also for their
other sins, to the manifestation of his justice. And
this is the decree of reprobation, which in no wise
makes God the author of sin, (a thing blasphemous
once to conceive,) but a fearful, unreprovable and
just judge and revenger."
The French Confession: "Others he [God] left in
tliat corruption and damnation, in whom he might
as well make manifest his justice, by condemning
them justly in their time, as also declare the riches
of his mercy in the others. For some are not better
than others, till such time as the Lord doth make a
difference, according to that immutable counsel
which he had decreed in Christ Jesus before the
creation of the world."
i66 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisin.
The Belgic Confession: "We believe that God
(after that the whole offspring of Adam was cast
headlong into perdition and destruction through the
default of the first man) hath declared and showed
himself to be such an one as he is indeed; namely,
both merciful and just . . . just, in leaving others in
that their fall and perdition, whereinto they had
thrown themselves headlong."
Fornmla Consensus Helvetica: "In such wise in-
deed did God determine to illustrate his glory that
he decreed, first to create man in integrity, then to
permit his fall, and finally to pity some from among
the fallen and so to elect them, but to leave the
others in the corrupt mass, and at length to devote
them to eternal destruction."
The Irish Confession (Episcopal): "God, from all
eternity, did, by his unchangeable counsel, ordain
whatsoever in time should come to pass: yet so as
thereby no violence is offered to the wills of the
reasonable creatures, and neither the liberty nor the
contingency of the second causes is taken away, but
established rather.
"By the same eternal counsel, God hath predesti-
nated some unto life, and reprobated some unto death:
of both which there is a certain number, known only
to God, which can neither be increased nor dimin-
ished."
These statements of the doctrine of reprobation in
Calvinistic formularies may be digested into the fol-
lowing definition:
Reprobation is God's eternal purpose, presupposing
his foreknowledge of the fall of mankind into sin
through their own fault, and grounded in the sove-
Reprobation Stated and Proved, 167
reign pleasure of his own will, not to elect to salvation
certain individual men, — that is, to pass them by, and
to continue them under condemnation for their sins,
— in order to the glory of his justice.
The scriptural proofs are as follows:
1. The testimonies which have been adduced to
prove the doctrine of election also establish that of
reprobation; for, if God elected to salvation some of
mankind, it follows as a necessary inference that he
did not elect the rest, but purposed to continue them
under condemnation for their sins.
2. God did not create men in order that they should
sin and be damned and so glorify his justice; for he
is not the author of sin, but man, in the first instance,
sinned and fell by the free and avoidable decision of
his own will.
Gen. i. 26, 27, 31: ''And God said, Let us make
man in our image, after our likeness ... So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him." "And God saw every thing that
he had made, and, behold, it was very good."
Gen. V. i: "In the day that God created man, in
the likeness of God made he him."
1 Cor. xi. 7: "For a man indeed not to cover his
head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of
God."
2 Cor. iii. 18: "But we all, with open face behold-
ing as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed
into the same image from glory to glory."
Eph. iv. 24: "And that ye put on the new man
which after God is created in righteousness and true
holiness."
Col. iii. 10: "And have put on the new man, which
1 68 Calvinism and Evangelical Anninianism.
is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that
created him."
Jas. iii. 9: "Therewith bless we God even the
Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made
after the similitude of God."
Ecc. vii. 29: "Lo, this only have I found, that
God made man upright; but they have sought out
many inventions."
Ps. xcix. 8: "Thou tookest vengeance of their in-
ventions."
Acts, xvii. 26: "And hath made of one blood all
nations of men."
Rom. i. 20, 21: " For the invisible things of him
from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
excuse; because that when they knew God, they
glorified him not as God," etc.
Rom. V. 12, 17, 18, 19: "By one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed
upon all men, for that all have sinned . .By one
man's offence death reigned by one ... By the of-
fence of one [or, one offence] judgment came upon
all men to condemnation ... By one man's diso-
bedience many were made sinners."
Gen. iii. 12, 17: "And the man said. The woman
whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the
tree, and I did eat . . . And unto Adam he said.
Because thou hast hearkened unto tlie voice of thy
wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded
thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the
ground for thy sake," etc.
Jas. i. 13-17: "Let no man say when he is
Reprobation Stated and Proved. 169
tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be
tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away
of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath
conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is
finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my
beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect
gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father
of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither
shadow of turning."
I John ii. 16: "For all that is in the world, the
lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the
pride of life, is not of the Father."
Hos. xiii. 9: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thy-
self."
3. Some testimonies to the awful fact of the repro-
bation of the wicked are subjoined.
Ex. vii. 3, 4, and ix. 12, 16: "And I will harden
Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and wonders
in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken
unto you." "And the Lord hardened the heart of
Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the
Lord had spoken unto Moses. . . . And in very
deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to show
in thee my power; and that my name may be declared
in all the earth."
Dent. xxix. 4: "Yet the Lord hath not given you
a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, arid ears to hear,
unto this day."
Deut. xxxiii. 35: " To me belongeth vengeance and
recompense; their foot shall slide in due time: for the
day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that
shall come upon them make haste."
■o Calvin is in and Evano^elical Arniinianism
Prov. xvi. 4: "The Lord hath made all things for
himself: yea even the wicked for the day of evil."
Isa. vi. 9, 10: "And he said, Go and tell this peo-
ple, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye
indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this
people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their
eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with
their ears, and understand with their hearts, and con-
vert, and be healed. ' '
Isa. xxix. 10: "For the Lord hath poured out upon
you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your
eyes."
Isa. XXX. 33: "For Tophet is ordained of old; yea,
for the king it is prepared."
Isa. Ix. 2: "For, behold, the darkness shall cover
the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the
Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be
seen upon thee."
Mai. i. 2-5: "I have loved you, saith the Lord.
Yet ye say, wherein hast thou loved us? Was not
Bsau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved
Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and
his heritao^e waste for the draQ^ons of the wilderness.
Whereas Edom saith, we are impoverished, but we
will return and build the desolate places; thus saith
the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw
down; and they shall call them. The border of wicked-
ness, and, The people against whom the Lord hath
indignation forever. And your eyes shall see, and ye
shall say, The Lord will be magnified from the bordei
of Israel."
Matt. xi. 25, 26: "At that time Jesus answered and
said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and
Reprobation Stated and Proved. 171
earth, because thou hast hid these tliiugs from the
wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight."
Matt. xiii. 13, 14: "Therefore speak I to them in
parables; because they seeing see not; and hearing
they hear not, neither do they understand. And in
them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith.
By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand;
and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive."
Mark iv. 11, 12 : "And he said unto them, Unto
you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom
of God : but unto them that are without, all these
things are done in parables : that seeing they may
see, and not perceive ; and hearing they may hear,
and not understand ; lest at any time they should be
converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."
Lk. iv. 25-28: "But I tell you of a truth, many
widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the
heaven was shut up three years and six months, when
great famine was throughout all the land ; but unto
none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a
city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And
many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the
prophet, and none of them was cleansed, saving
Naaman the Syrian. And all they in the synagogue,
when they heard these things, were filled with wrath."
John X. 26: " But ye believe not, because ye are not
of my sheep, as I said unto you."
John xii. 37-40: "But though he had done so many
miracles before them, yet they believed not on him :
that the saying of Esaias the prophet miglit be ful-
filled, which he spake. Lord, wli^o hath believed our
report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been
172 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
revealed ? Therefore they coilld not believe, because
that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes and
hardened their heart; that they should not see with
their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be
converted, and I should heal them."
John xvii. 9: "I pray not for the world, but foi
them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."
Acts xxviii. 25, 26: ''And when they agreed not
among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had
spoken one word. Well spake the Holy Ghost by
Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto
this people and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall
not understand; and seeing ye shall see and not per-
ceive, etc."
Rom. ix. 13: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have
I hated."
Rom. ix. 17, 18, 21, 22: "For the Scripture saith
unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I
raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee,
and that my name might be declared throughout all
the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he
will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth . . .
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same
lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another
unto dishonor? what, if God, willing to shew his
wrath, and to make his power known, endured with
much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to
destruction?
Rom. xi. 7-10: "What then? Israel hath not ob-
tained that which he seeketh for; but the election
hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (according
as it is written, Go4 hath given them the spirit of
slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that
Reprobation Stated and Proved. 173
they should not hear;) unto this day. And David
saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and
a stumbling-block, and a recompence unto them: let
their eyes be darkened that they may not see, and
bow down their back alway. "
2 Tim. ii. 17-20 : '' And their word will eat as doth
a canker: of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus; who
concerning the truth have erred, saying that the res-
urrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of
some. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth
sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that
are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name
of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house
there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but
also of wood and of earth; and some to honor, and
some to dishonor."
I Thess. V. 9 : " For God hath not appointed us to
wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus
Christ." The necessary implication is, that God has
appointed some to wrath.
1 Pet. ii. 8: ''And a stone of stumbling, and a
rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the
word, being disobedient : whereunto also they were
appointed."
2 Pet. ii. 3 : " And through covetousness shall they
with feigned words make merchandise of you : whose
judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their
damnation slumbereth not."
Jude, 4: "For there are certain men crept in un-
awares, who were before of old ordained to this con-
demnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our
God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord
God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."
174 Calvinism, and Evangelical Arniinianisni.
Such are the proofs of the doctrine of reprobation
which are derived from the Word of God, and they
are too solid to be shaken by appeals to hnman senti-
ment, or even to human reason. It is admitted that
the chief weight of the argument consists in the
scriptural evidence in favor of unconditional election.
That being proved, reprobation cannot be denied.
The two doctrines stand or fall together. They are
opposite sides of the same truth — two hemispheres of
the same globe, one bright with the light of the
divine love and of the beauty of holiness, the other
dark with the judicial frown of God and the dreadful
deformity of sin. But while this is true, the addi-
tional evidence furnished by the direct testimony of
the Scriptures which have been cited is also conclu-
sive. Some of the passages quoted have, of course,
been strenuously contested. The most prominent are
I Pet. ii. 8, and Jude, 4. But it must be conceded
that the word in the former passage translated "ap-
pointed " {krkQrjaav) has in it the force of purpose ; and
while the same thing is not as apparently true of the
word in the latter passage rendered " before ordained "
(Trpoyeypafxfievoi)^ yet the Same scusc is Substantially con-
veyed. For, if that disputed word be literally trans-
lated "before written," it would have to be confessed
that the written assignment beforehand of these un-
godly men to condemnation was but a revelation of
God's judicial purpose. It will not do to say that
only God's foreknowledge of the doom of these wicked
men was expressed, for the obvious reason that no
man can be doomed, except God dooms him, and that
necessarily involves an eternal purpose ; unless the
preposterous ground could be maintained that God's
Rcprobdluni Slalcd and Proiwi.
I .■)
purpose to condemn, like li'is actual sentence of con-
demnation, has no existence nntil the crime meritin<^
condemnation shall have been committed. Further,
to represent the Calvinist as holding that God dooms
men to sin, as well as to condemnation for their sin,
and in order to that condemnation, is to misrepresent
him.
It is not deemed necessary to develop at large the
proofs of the doctrine, particularly as it will fall to
be considered in connection with the objections which
will hereafter be examined. A few words are added,
expounding the nature of the doctrine and guarding
it against misconception.
The Calvinistic doctrine is not that God decreed to
make men sinners. "Our Standards," says Dr.
Thornwell, the late able Professor of Systematic The-
ology in one of the Seminaries of the Southern Pres-
byterian Church, "afford no sort of shelter to the
Hopkinsian error, that the decree of reprobation con-
sists in God's determining to fit a certain number of
mankind for eternal damnation, and that the divine
agency is as positively employed in men's bad voli-
tions and actions as in their good."' God in eternity
conceived the human race as fallen into sin by its own
free and avoidable self-decision. So conceiving it, he
decreed judicially to condemn the whole race for its
sin. We have seen that the teaching of Scripture is,
that out of his mere mercy, and according to the good
pleasure of his sovereign will, he decreed to save some
of the fallen and sinful mass w^ho were thus contem-
plated as justly condemned. That is Election. The
rest, consequently, were not elected to be saved, but
^ Coll. Writings, vol. ii. p. 143.
176 CalvinisiJi and Evangelical Arniinianism.
were passed by and ordained to continue under just
condemnation. That is Reprobation. There are two
elements which it involves : first, a sovereign act of
God, by which they were in his purpose passed by
and left in the condition in which they were regarded
as placing themselves. That is called Preterition.
Secondly, there is a judicial act of God, by which
they were in his purpose ordained to continue under
the sentence of the broken law and to suffer punish-
ment for their sin. That is called Condemnation.
Principal William Cunningham, the late distinguished
Professor of Historical Theology in the PVee Church
of Scotland, who, as a Comparative Theologian of
the first eminence, ought to have known what he was
talking about, thus clearly explains the doctrine :
*'In stating and discussing the question with respect
to reprobation, Calvinists are careful to distinguish
between the two different acts formerly referred to,
decreed or resolved upon by God from eternity, and
executed by him in time, — the one negative and the
other positive, — the one sovereign and the other ju-
dicial. The first, which they call non-election, prete-
rition, or passing by, is simply decreeing to leave —
and, in consequence, leaving — men in their natural
state of sin : to withhold from them, or to abstain
from conferring upon them, those special, supernat-
ural, gracious influences, which are necessary to en-
able them to repent and believe ; so that the result is,
that they continue in their sin, with the guilt of their
transgression upon their head. The second — the posi-
tive, judicial — act is more properly that which is
called, in our Confession, 'fore-ordaining to everlast-
ing death,' and 'ordaining those who have been
Reprobation Stated ajid Proved. 177
passed by to dishonor and wrath for their sin.' God
ordains none to wrath or pnnishment, except on ac-
count of their sin, and makes no decree to subject
them to punishment which is not founded on, and has
reference to, their sin, as a thing certain and contem-
plated. But the first, or negative, act of pretention,
or passing by, is not founded upon their sin, and per-
severance in it, as foreseen."^
This is the decreium horribile — an expression of
Calvin concerning which endless changes have been
rung. It is a decree, not horrible in the sense of
being too bad to be believed, but of being terrible to
the wicked and awful even to the pious. It is indeed
suited to appal the stoutest heart and blanch the
boldest face. It reveals more strongly than anything
else, except the Cross on which Jesus bled and died,
God's infinite abhorrence of Sin— the opposite of his
nature, the menace of his government, the dynamite
of the universe. And it is enough to fill us with hor-
ror of sin to know, that even infinite mercy has res-
cued not one of the fallen angels from their doom,
and only some of our guilty and ruined race from the
everlasting damnation which is its due.
^ Hist. Theology, vol. ii. pp. 429. 430-
12
SECTION III.
OBJECTIONS FROM THE MORAL ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
ANSWERED.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS.
I NOW proceed to consider the objections which are
urged against the Calvinistic doctrines of election and
reprobation. They are mainly derived from two
sources — the moral attributes of God, and the moral
agency of man. Before these objections are specially
examined a few things must be premised.
First, the question of the divine decrees in relation
to the everlasting destinies of men is one which, as it
is raised by God's supernatural revelation of his wall
in his Word, must be settled by its authority. Reason
in its original integrity — right reason, which was a
part of God's -first revelation of himself to man — was
entitled to speak concerning the general plan of the
divine government, and to deduce inferences from it
in regard to God's eternal purposes as thus manifested.
But sin has occurred; and the question of a possible
recovery from its retributive results reason could have
no means of determining. Upon that question only
a new and supernatural revelation could throw any
trustworthy light. This would have been true had
reason itself retained its original purity. But it has
(178)
Preliminary Remarks. 179
not. The faculty which presumes to sit in judgment
upon the awful problem of sin, and its relation to the
divine government, has itself been seriously affected
by the moral revolution which has taken place. It is
therefore doubly incompetent to assume the functions
of a judge.
True, reason circumstanced as it now is, has a
legitimate office to discharge in judging of the claims
of a revelation professing to come from God. But
that preliminary office having been performed, and
the conclusion having been reached, that the Bible is
a revelation from God, the duty of reason is to submit
to the divine authority involved in that expression of
his will. Hence one great Protestant canon is, that
the Bible is the only complete and ultimate rule of
faith and practice. It alone, in spirit^ial matters,
infallibly teaches us what we are to believe, and what
we are to do.
But, as this supreme rule has to be interpreted,
another great canon, co-ordinate with the first, is that
the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Scriptures, is the
supreme Judge of controversies in religion. The
supreme rule is the Scriptures; the Supreme Judge of
the meaning of the rule is the Holy Ghost speaking
in the Scriptures — this is the watchword of Protest-
antism.
Now, in the controversy between Calvinists and
Arminians touching the decrees of God in relation to
the destinies of men, both parties admit the canons
which have been noticed. It is clear, then, that both
parties to the issue are under obligation not to judge
the infallible Scriptures by f^illible reason — not to
subordinate the supreme rule to a lower, and the su-
i8o Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism,
^>
preme Judge to an inferior. Appeals are competent
from the court of reason; but the court of last resort,
from which no appeal can lie, is the Scriptures illu-
minated and interpreted by the Holy Ghost. This
is, on both sides, acknowledged.
The argument, then, is one founded on Scripture,
and it may be fairly claimed that the doctrines of
election and reprobation have, in the conduct of this
discussion, been made to rest upon scriptural proofs.
If so, no merely rational objections can be validly
urged against them.
I Secondly, the fact deserves to be noted that, in the
I prosecution of this controversy, the arguments of
j Arminian writers have been chiefly grounded in ra-
^ tional considerations, and not in the direct testimonies
of Scripture. When the Calvinist shows from the
express declarations of the divine Word that God
from eternity elected some of the human race to sal-
vation, the Arminian is unable to adduce such posi-
tive statements to prove that he did not. His argu-
ments are drawn, in -the main, from general princi-
ples announced in the Scriptures, and from what are
supposed to be fundamental intuitions of the human
mind. Now it is evident that this sort of reasoning,
in relation to doctrines of a purely supernatural char-
acter, cannot be of equal value with direct appeals to
the explicit deliverances of Scripture. Ignorance
and an evil heart of unbelief are prolific sources of
error in regard to the mysterious truths of a supernat-
ural revelation.
In the first place, we are ignorant of God's nature
as it is in itself, and of the vast and comprehensive
scheme of his moral Liovernment as a whole. The
Preliminary Remarks. i8i
analogy of our own nature, and the limited observa-
tion to which we can attain of the procedures of di-
vine providence, are utterly insufficient guides to the
understanding of such supernatural truths as the
election and condemnation of human beings.
In the second place, our ignorance is often mani-
fested in wrong inferences from admitted principles.
It is obvious that the danger arising from this source
is much greater when we deduce our inferences from
o-eneral statements, than when we draw them from
definite declarations made in the professed delivery or
elucidation of particular truths.
In the third place, an evil heart of unbelief inclines
us to refuse submission to God's authority, and to re-
ject doctrines which are plainly revealed. Of this
danger the teachers of religion in our Saviour's day
furnished eminent examples. We tend to accept tra-
dition, precedents, wi'despread opinions and the ap-
parently instinctive judgments of reason, rather than
the authoritative statements which miraculous cre-
dentials prove to come directly from God himself.
The docile and trusting temper of little children be-
comes us in dealing with the oracles of God.
In the fourth place, under the operation of the same
causes men are prone to assert for the natural reason
the prerogative of final judgment upon the contents
of supernatural revelation. They appeal to the in-
tuitive judgments of their souls as a higher law —
superior to the Bible itself. The danger of mistake
just here is great and imminent. The Bible does not
contradict any true intuition, intellectual or moral, of
our being. It must harmonize with our fundamental
laws of belief and our fundamental laws of rectitude,
1 82 Calvinism and Eva?t^elical Arminianisni
for its Author is theirs. When a conflict seems to
emerge between it and them, we may be sure that
we have mistaken false laws for true, embraced a
cloud for a divinity. There is peril of grievous blun-
dering when we bring the Bible to the bar of our
intuitions.
Thirdly, Arminian writers are in the habit of dwell-
ing at much greater length upon the difficulties of
reprobation than upon those of election. Reproba-
tion, they argue, is but an inference from election,
and in disproving the consequence they claim to dis-
prove that from which it is derived. This was the
course pursued by the Remonstrant divines at the
Synod of Dort, and when the Synod objected to it as
illegitimate they complained of the decision as a
grievance. This is certainly unfair. The doctrine
of election is much more definitely, fully and clearly
delivered in Scripture than that of reprobation, and
therefore it should be made the first and principal
topic of discussion. The Arminians, moreover, over-
look the fact that Calvinists do not hold reprobation
to be merely an inference from election. They main-
tain that it is also supported by independent testi-
monies of Scripture. It is necessary to a thorough-
going apprehension of the state of the controversy
that attention be called to this method of procedure
on the part of Anti-Calvinists.
Fourthly, it merits notice, in view of the fact that
1 ^Anti-Calvinists conduct their argument mainly by
('urging objections to the Calvinistic position, that
"mere objections constitute at best but a negative
testimony which cannot destroy positive evidence."
The same course of argumentation would, if success-
Preliiniiiary Remarks. 183
fill, upset our belief ill some of the grandest and most
essential articles of the Christian scheme. If positive
evidence of Scripture is to be sacrificed to objections
and difficulties raised by the natural reason or tlie
natural feelings, nothing would be left to us but the
dry bones of Natural Religion, and even them the
Atheist would not allow to rest in peace.
It is not intended to affirm that Arminians offer no
testimony upon this subject, which is professedly
drawn from Scripture. But the direct proofs, as has
already been shown, are, as proofs, insignificant both
in weight and in number; being so debatable in char-
acter as to be actually adduced on the Calvinistic side,
and opposed, as they are, by an overwhelming mass
of direct proofs in favor of the doctrines in question.
The quantity of direct and positive evidence is cer-
tainly against the Arminian. He furnishes, it is true,
abundance of indirect proof, derived by way of infer-
ence from doctrines conceived to be inconsistent with
those of election and reprobation. In view of this
seeming conflict of doctrines, pains have been taken
in the previous part of this discussion to exhibit the
direct and positive proofs afforded by the Scriptures of
the doctrines of election and reprobation. If the
Arminian were able to collect an equal body of such
proofs in favor of the doctrines that God efficiently
wills the salvation of every individual man, and of the
doctrine that he gave his Son to die that every indi-
vidual man should be saved, the result would certainly
be that the Bible would contradict itself, and conse-
quently there need be no further question in regard to
what it teaches. But if the direct proofs of the
Arminian amount to no more than the establishment
184 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
of the doctrines that God, iji some sense^ wills the sal-
vation of all men, and that, in some sense^ he gave his
Son to die for all men, no contradiction emerges; and
the sense, in which the statements that God wills the
salvation of all men and that he gave his Son to die
for all men are to be taken, must be adjusted to doc-
trines which are positively and unequivocally asserted
in the divine Word. Doubtful statements must be
squared with unambiguous. They must dress by the
right.
Fifthly, it is unwarrantable for us, limited as are
i our faculties, and sinful as are our natures, to specu-
1 late as to what God ought to do or must do in con-
I sistency with his character. It becomes us rather to
hear with reverence what, in his Word, he says he
has done or will do. Impressed by the necessity of
the direct and positive testimony of Scripture, which
is lacking in the usual argument from the character
of God against the Calvinistic doctrine, some dis-
tinguished Anti-Calvinistic writers, such as Bishop
Copleston and Archbishop Whately, virtually aban-
doned that line of proof.
Having cited attention to these considerations
which lie at the very threshold of the question before
us, I pass to the examination of special objections to
the Calvinistic doctrines of election and reprobation ;
and the first class we encounter is derived from the
Moral Attributes of God.
I. OBJECTION FROM DIVINE JUSTICE.
It is objected that these doctrines are inconsistent
with the justice of God.
Objection from Divine Justice. 185
It is important to observe that this objection de-
rived from the divine jnstice is not mainly directed
against the decree to elect some of the human race to
salvation. How could it? What has justice to do
with election, which is confessedly the result of grace?
It is true that the Calvinistic doctrine of election is
charged with imputing partiality to God in distin-
o-uishincr between the members of the race, so as to
save some and leave others to perish. But the objec-
tion is chiefly leveled against the decree to reprobate
some of the human race. It is especially this decree
which is declared to be in conflict with justice. Now
let us recall the statement of the Calvinistic doctrine
of reprobation. It is that God decreed sovereignly to
pass by — that is, not to elect to salvation — some of
the guilty and condemned mass of mankind, and ju-
dicially to continue them under the condemnation
which, by their sin, they were conceived in the divine
mind as havinsf deserved. That is the Calvinistic
doctrine. Is it against this doctrine that the objec-
jection from justice is urged? It is not. What, then,
is the doctrine, as stated by Arminian writers, against
which the objection is pressed? Let us hear one of
them who at the present day holds the position of a
representative theologian. He says:
'*By unconditional election divines of this class
LCalvinists] understand an election of persons to eter-
nal life without respect to their faith or obedience,
those qualities in them being supposed necessarily to
follow as consequences of their election; by uncondi-
tional reprobation, the counterpart of the former doc-
trine, is meant a non-election or rejection of certain
persons from eternal salvation; unbelief and disobe-
i86 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism,
dience following this rejection as necessary conse-
qnences. " ^
Let these statements be compared. The Calvinist
says, God finds men already disobedient and con-
demned, and leaves some of them in the condition of
disobedience and condemnation to which by their own
avoidable act they had reduced themselves. The Ar-
minian represents the Calvinist as saying, God decrees
to reject some of mankind from eternal salvation, and
their disobedience follows as a necessary consequence.
That is to say, if the language mean an\'thing, God's
decree of reprobation causes the disobedience of some
men, and then dooms them to eternal punishment for
that disobedience. But who would deny that to be
unjust? That is not what the Calvinistic doctrine
teaches. No section of the Calvinistic body teaches
it. The Calvinistic Symbols do not. The Sublapsa-
rian theologians do not; and they constitute the vast
majority of Calvinists. The Symbols and these the-
ologians alike hold that man was created upright, in
the image of God, endowed with ample ability to re-
frain from sinning, and that, therefore, he fell by his
own free self-decision. Even the Supralapsarian theo-
logians do not unqualifiedly teach the doctrine here
imputed to Calvinists. To a man, they contend that
God decreed to reprobate some of mankind " for their
sin." But should it be said that they, in taking this
position, are chargeable with inconsistency, it must
be remembered that the body of Calvinists, being
Sublapsarian, are not liable to the same charge. It
is not, therefore, the Calvinistic doctrine of reproba-
* Watsou, Theo. Inst., Vol. ii. p. 326. See also Wesley, Sermon
on Predestination.
Objection from Divine Justice.
tion whicli is liable to the criticism of being in
gruous with the justice of God, but one which Calvin- ^^
ists would unite with Arminians in condemning. The
arrow misses the mark, and for a good reason : it was
aimed at another. This is the first blunder in the
Arminian statement of the Calvinistic position. It is .
represented to be : that God decreed to cause the first /
sin of man and then decreed to doom some of the
fallen race to destruction for its commission. The"!
true statement is : that God decreed to permit sin, audi j
then decreed to continue some of the race under the| *
condemnation which he foreknew they would, byi
their own fault, incur.
The second blunder in the Arminian statement of
the Calvinistic position is, that the decrees of election
and reprobation are represented_as being equally un- /
conditional. They are said to correspond in this re-
spe^r This representation is only partly correct; and
how far it is correct and how far incorrect, it is im-
portant to observe. It is admitted that both the
decrees of election and reprobation are conditioned
upon the divine foreknowledge of the Fall; that is to
say, the foreknowledge of the Fall is, in the order of ,
thought, pre-supposed by each of these decrees. This
is the doctrine of the Calvinistic Confessions, and
even of Calvin himself. ' But the question before us
is, whether the divine foreknowledge of the special
acts of men, done after the Fall, conditioned these
decrees. It has already been shown that in this
regard the decree of election is unconditional. It is
not conditioned bv the divine foreknowledge of the
on Rom. ix. ii; i Pet. i. 20.
i88 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
faith, good works and perseverance therein of the in-
dividnals whom God wills to save. The qnestion
being, whether the decree of reprobation is also un-
conditional, a distinction must be taken. The pre-
terition — the passing by — of some of the fallen mass,
and leaving them in their sin and ruin, is uncon-
f ditional. It is not conditioned by the divine fore-
knowledge of their special sins, rendering them more
I ill-deserving than those whom God is pleased to elect.
So far reprobation is unconditional. In this regard,
it is, like election, grounded in the good pleasure of
God's sovereign will. But the judicial condemnation
— the continuing under the sentence of the broken
law — of the non-elect, is conditional. It is condi-
tioned by the divine foreknowledge of the first sin
and of all actual transgressions, the special sins which
spring from the principle of original corruption. In
this respect, and to this extent, the decrees of election
and reprobation are different, the one being uncondi-
tional, the other conditional. To say, then, that they
are entirely alike in being both unconditional is to
misrepresent the Calvinistic position. This exposition
is supported by the following statement of Principal
Cunningham: "The second — the positive, judicial
act — is more properly that which is called, in our
Confession, 'foreordaining to everlasting death,' and
'ordaining those who have been passed by to dishonor
and wrath for their sin.' God ordains none to wrath
or punishment, except on account of their sin, and
makes no decree to subject them to punishment which
is not founded on, and has reference to, their sin, as a
thing certain and contemplated. But the first, or
negative, act of pretention, or passing by, is not
Objection from Divine Justice. 189
founded upon their sin, and perseverance in it as fore-
seen." ^
The third blunder in the Arminian statement of
the Calvinistic position is, that the decrees of election
and reprobation are alike in being causes from which
human acts proceed as effects; the former being the
cause of holy acts in those who are to be saved, the
latter, of sinful acts in those who are to be lost. Af-
ter what has already been said there is little need to
dwell npon the defectiveness of this statement. A
sinner is destitute of any principle of holiness from
which holy acts could spring. The efficiency of grace
is a necessity to the production of holiness in his
case. But the principle of depravity in a sinner's
nature is itself a cause of sinful acts. Unless, there-
fore, the Calvinistic doctrine could be fairly charged
with teaching that God causes the sinful principle, it
cannot be held to teach that he causes the sinful acts
which it naturally produces. On the contrary, it
maintains that the principle of sin in the nature of
man is self-originated. Its consequences are obviously
referred to the same origin: all sin, original and ac-
tual is affirmed to be caused by man himself God,
in reprobating the sinner for his sins, cannot be said
to cause his sins.
But it will be replied that the difficulty is not en-
tirely removed; for reprobation supposes that God
withholds from the sinner the efficiency of grace by
which alone he could produce holy acts, and so is
represented as causing the absence of those acts and
the commission of sinful. The rejoinder is plain: the
assertion of a correspondence between the two decrees
^ Hist. Ttieol., Vol. ii. p. 430.
190 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
in regard to causal efficiency operating upon the sin-
ner is given up. The only similarity remaining is
one between election as directly and positively caus-
ing holy acts and reprobation as indirectly and nega-
tively occasioning sinful. This amounts to a relin-
quishment of the analogy affirmed to obtain between
them, and the preferment of a separate charge against
• the justice of reprobation: namely, that God is un-
just in withholding from some sinners the efficient
grace which he is said to impart to others. But if all
men are sinners by their own free self-decision and,
therefore, by their own fault, there would have been
no injustice had God withheld his grace from all.
Consequently there could have been no injustice in
withholding it from some. What is true of all must
be true of some. This point will meet further con-
sideration as the discussion advances.
It is clear, in view of what has been said, that the
implication contained in the fore-cited Arminian
statement of the Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation is
far from being correct — namely, that God, by virtue
of that decree, causes the sins of the non-elect in the
same way as, by virtue of the decree of election, he
causes the faith and good works of the elect. In the
decree of election he ordains men to salvation not be-
cause of their obedience, but of his mere mercy, ac-
cording to the counsel of his sovereign will; while, in
the decree of reprobation, he judicially, that is, in
accordance with the requirement of his justice, ordains
men to punishment because of their self-elected diso-
bedience.
The Calvinistic doctrine having thus been cleared
of mis-conception and mis-statement, we are prepared
Objection from Divutc Justice. 191
for the real state of the question. It is this : Was
God just ill eternally decreeing to punish transgressors
of his law for their wilful violation of it? This bein<r
the real question, what answer but one can be given ?
Has not God, the righteous Governor of the world, a
right to exercise his justice upon voluntary sinners?
And if he has, was he unrighteous in eternally de-
creeing to exercise his justice upon them? The ar-
gument is not with those who deny the existence of
retributive justice in God, but with those who admit
it, and justify its exercise upon the wicked. How,
then, can they pronounce a doctrine inconsistent with
the divine justice, which affirms that God decreed to
reprobate men for their sin? We may well ask with
Paul, "Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?"
Is the Judge of all the earth unjust in inflicting punish-
ment upon reckless and inexcusable revolters against
his government and violators of his law? It is evi-
dent that this cannot be the doctrine against which
the objection under consideration is urged. It cannot
be consistently advanced against this doctrine by the
Arminian, for with the Calvinist he admits the justice
of God in punishing wilful sinners. The doctrine
against which it is directed is, that God so decreed the
sin of man that it became in consequence of his decree
necessary and unavoidable, and then decreed to punish
man for what he could not avoid. But, as has been
shown, that is not the doctrine which is held by the
great body of Calvinists or stated in the Calvinistic
symbols.
A special form of the objection drawn from the di-
vine justice against the Calvinistic doctrines of elec-
tion and reprobation is, that they ascribe partiality to
T92 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianisni.
God, in that he is represented as discriminating be-
tween those who are in the same case, by decreeing to
save some and to reprobate others. The objection in
this form is at least relevant, for the discrimination
which is charged the Calvinist admits ; bnt he denies
that the discrimination involves partiality, in the
sense of injnstice. If there be injnstice, it mnsf
cither be to the divine government, or to the elect, or
to the reprobate. It cannot be to the divine govern-
ment, for the elect are saved through the merit of
Christ, their glorious Substitute, who in their room
rendered perfect satisfaction to the divine justice for
their sins. It cannot be to the elect, for salvation
cannot possibly inflict injustice upon them. It can-
not be to the reprobate, for they had no sort of claim
to the divine favor which was refused. They pos-
sessed no right of which they were defrauded. The
only desert they had was of punishment for their sins.
Where then is the injustice which was inflicted upon
them? Discrimination there was, but it was between
those who were all equally ill-deserving; and surely
God had the right to release some from merited pun-
ishment, and to continue others under its infliction.
Surely he had the right to exercise his mercy toward
some and his justice upon others.
It might, with some color of plausibility, be said
that God was not good in saving some and leaving
others to perish, but how it can be pleaded that he
was unjust passes comprehension. Let it be clearly
perceived that none had any, the least, claim upon
the divine regard, and the objection of unjust par-
tiality at once vanishes. Let it be seen that all had
brought themselves into sin and condemnation by
Objection from Divine Justice. 193
their own free and nnnecessitated decision, and it
nmst be granted that the glorification of his mercy in
the salvation of some, and of his jnstice in the pun-
ishment of others, were ends which were worthy of
God. They were all, as criminals, prisoners in the
hands of jnstice. God, as the supreme Sovereign
pleases to exercise clemency towards some of them,
and, as supreme Judge, continues to exercise justice
upon others, for the purpose of glorifying both his
grace and his justice in the eyes of the universe. The
execution of justice upon criminals is always dreadful;
it can never be unjust. No temper but that of squeam-
ish sentimentality, or of captious insubordination to
the righteous measures of government, can detect in-
justice in such a procedure. One would suppose that
instead of objecting to the justice of God in the pun-
ishment of his fellow-criminals, he who has been dis-
charged by unmerited favor from his deserved share
in their doom would spend time and eternity in thank-
ful acknowledgments of tliat grace. That wicked
men object to the justice of their own punishment is
no matter of wonder; that pious men object to the
justice of God in punishing the wicked, even though
he might save them, is a fact which can only be
accounted for on the ground that there is a wrong
application of a true principle, as a standard of
judgment in the case. Arminians and other Anti-
Calvinists object to the Calvinist doctrine of reproba-
tion because, as they contend, it involves this mon-
strous assumption : that God judicially condemns to
everlasting punishment those whose sin was unavoid-
able and was therefore no fault of their own. God
is represented as magnifying his justice in the punish-
13
194 Calvi/tism and Evangelical Arminianism.
ment of the innocent. How do they support this
objection ?
They lay it down as a fundamental principle, that
ability is always the condition a ltd measure of obliga-
tion. No one can justly be required, under any cir-
cumstances, to do what he is unable to do. Ability
to do must be equal to the commanded duty. This
principle, in itself true, is universally applied, and
consequently in some cases wrongly applied. It is
applied to man in his present fallen and sinful condi-
tion as well as to man in his oris^inal and unfallen and
sinless estate. The Calvinist maintains that men are
now, in consequence of the Fall, and as unregenerate,
in a condition of spiritual inability. They are not
able to furnish acceptable obedience to the moral law,
and they are likewise unable to comply with the re-
quirements of the gospel. Now in what way did they
come to be thus disabled ? If by their own fault,
their inability is the fruit of avoidable sin, and is
therefore itself a sin. But, contends the Arminian,
the Calvinist holds that they were boni thus disabled ;
and if so, the inability was contracted by no fault of
their own. It is congenital and constitutional. To
condemn them for not doing what an inability so
derived disqualifies them for doing is plainly unjust.
It is like striking a corpse for a death which the living
man could not avoid. This is the cardinal point in
the question now at issue, and to it especial attention
must be devoted.
I. The Sublapsarian Calvinist — and he is the true
Calvinist — is not committed to the support of either
party in the contest between the Arminian and the
Supralapsarian. He is an interested spectator, except
Objection from Divine Jtistice.
when his own position is endangered by assault,
the battle advances he cries, Strike on, Arminian !
Wield the mighty principle that God is not the author
of sin : that, in the first instance — the instance of man
in innocence — ability is the condition and measure of
obligation. Again he shouts, Strike on, Supralap-
sarian ! Wield the mighty principle that in the second
instance — the instance of man in his present fallen
state — ability is not the condition and measure of
obligation : that man's present inability is his own sin
and crime, for which God justly condemns him to
punishment. That, at the origin of the human race
in innocence, ability conditioned and measured obli-
gation, is not a distinctive tenet of Arminianism; it
is the doctrine of the true Church Universal. That,
in the present fallen condition of the race, inability
cannot and does not discharge men from their obliga-
tion, as subjects of God's government, to render
obedience to all his requirements, whether legal or
evangelical, — this is not a peculiar tenet of Supra-
lapsarianism; it also is the doctrine of the true Church
Universal. The Arminian adheres to the faith of
that Church, so far as man in innocence is concerned,
and breaks with it, so far as man in his fallen, unre-
generate state is concerned. The Supralapsarian
departs from it as to man in innocence and cleaves to
it as to fallen, unregenerate man. Both are right and
both are wrong. The Calvinist holds the faith of the
true Cliurch in its integrity.
2. The difficulty of reconciling congenital inability
with the justice of God in condemning men to pun-
ishment presses upon the Evangelical Arminian as
well as upon the Calvinist. The former holds that
ig6 Calvinism ajid Evangelical Aruiinianism.
men are born nnder gnilt and in depravity. Conse-
quently he must hold, and in fact does hold, that they
are born in a condition of spiritual inability.^ It is
true that Dr. Pope speaks of an "unindividualized"
human nature which before the birth of individuals
is, through the virtue of Christ's atonement, freed
from the guilt of Adam's sin and endued with a
measure of spiritual life, and implies that were it not
for this redemptive provision individuals would be
born in spiritual death. But at other times he talks
in the same dialect as his brethren, and admits the
Evangelical doctrine that men are born in that condi-
tion. The question then is, how the Arminian har-
monizes this fact with his fundamental principle that
ability conditions obligation and the justice of God in
punishing men for disobedience to his requirements.
In this way : he holds that along with the decree to
permit the Fall, there was, conditioned by the divine
foreknowledge that it would occur, the decree to pro-
vide redemption from its consequences for all mankind.
Accordingly, the merit of the universal atonement
offered by Christ secured for all men the removal in
infancy of the guilt of Adam's sin. And, further, he
holds that a degree of spiritual life is imparted to
every man, or, as it is sometimes expressed, a part of
spiritual death is removed, and thus a measure of free
will is restored. The original inability thus ceases to
be total: men are endowed with a sufficient ability to
comply with the divine requirements.
'Articles of M. E. Church, vii, viii; Wesle}^ Semis, on Orig.
Sin, New Birth; Treatise on Orig. Sift, et passim; Watson, Theo.
Inst., Vol. ii, p. 49 ; Pope, Comp. Chris. Theot., Vol. ii, p. 80.; Ral-
ston, Eleni. Div., p. 141; Raymond, Syst. TheoL, Vol. ii, p. 83.
Objection from Divine Justice. 197
(i.) The first of these positions— namely, that
Adam's guilt is by virtue of the atonement removed
from every infant, is opposed by insuperable difficul-
ties.
First, the fundamental assumption, that the atone-
ment was offered for every individual man, cannot be
proved from the Scriptures. They teach that Christ
died for those of all nations and classes who were, in
the eternal covenant, given to him by the Father to
be redeemed. But as no value will be attached by
the Arminian to this assertion, let it, for the sake of
argument, be supposed that by virtue of the atone-
ment the guilt of Adam's sin is removed from every
infant. What follows? As an infant, he has, ex hy-
pothesi, no guilt derived from Adam. That is re-
moved. In that respect, therefore, he is innocent.
But as an infant cannot contract guilt by conscious
transgression, he is also in that respect innocent.
There being no other source of guilt, he is entirely
innocent. Is the Evangelical Arminian prepared to
take the Pelagian ground that infants are altogether
innocent ? Further, he holds that infants are totally
depraved in consequence of original sin residing in
them as a principle. That he does not declare to have
been removed by virtue of the atonement. We have
then a being totally innocent and totally depraved, at
one and the same time. Will the Evangelical Ar-
minian defend that paradox? Further still, if it be
said that total depravity is the result of development,
and is consequently predicable only of the adult, the
question arises, how a partial depravity, which is the
principle of the development, can consist with entire
innocence. The difficultv differs from the other
198 Calviiiism and Evangelical Armitiianisin,
merely in deQ^ree. If it be contended that the infant
is both entirely innocent and entirely undepraved, the
difficnlty is avoided, but others equally great are sub-
stituted for it. For such a position would contradict
the express teachings of his system and reduce his
doctrine to bald Pelagianism, And, moreover, it
would be impossible to account for the origin, the
initial point of the development of depravity. There
being no guilt and no depravity in the infant, he be-
gins life both innocent and pure. How then does his
depravity begin? Does each individual fall as Adam
did ? And are there as many falls as there are individ-
uals? Would these absurdities be admitted? "We do
not," says Dr. Pope, "assume a second personal fall
in the case of each individual reaching the crisis of
responsibility."^ Well, then, each individual must
begin existence depraved, and therefore cannot be in-
nocent. But if he has oruilt it must be Adam's gfuilt
imputed, for he cannot contract, as an infant, the
guilt of personal, conscious transgression.
There are two methods by which the Arminian
may be conceived to evade the force of this difficulty.
He may deny that depravity is sin. He may say, I
admit the connate depravity of the infant, but as I
do not concede that depravity is of the nature of sin,
I am not exposed to the pressure of this difficulty.
Innocence may not consist with sin, but it may with
depravity. Lest it be supposed that this extraordinary
hypothesis has been conjured up for the sake of an
ideal completeness of the argument, let us hear a re-
cent writer. Dr. C. W. IMiller. Expressly following
Limborch in his discussion of Original Sin, he says:
^ Comp. Chris. Theol., vol. ii. p. 59.
1
Objection from Divine Justice. i99
" It is shown that the ' inclination to sin ' which is a
part of the fearful heritage received from Adam is
Lt sin properly so called.' This is an nni^rtant
point" "The fundamental truth is here affirmed
'that'there is no corruption in children which is truly
and properly sin.' This cuts the tap- root of Augus-
tinianism, whose main postulate is that in ants in-
herit a moral corruption from Adam which is o the ^ .
nature of sin, and deserves eternal death. ' Speaking _
p.relv for himself he further savs : " The confusion V .^
of thought in Augustinianism consists in confound-
ing «« and depravity. They are not t'- -.ne n-ther
do thev have anv necessary connection. It is true
that man 'as boni after the Fall possesses, even be-
fore anv volitional act of his own, a fallen nature.
But that this ' fallen nature ' is a ' sinful state un-
righteous evil, moral evil, sin, sinfulness,' [tl- J-oted
language being taken from Whedon on the Will] is
an "^utter absurdity. A 'sinful ^nature or state can
be produced only by actual sin." '
In the first place, this hypothesis is extravagantly
paradoxical. It violates the meaning ot the terms
and the nsns loquendi oi Christendom, including he
Evan-elical Arminian bodies themselves. In the
second place, it strips a confessed inclination to sm of
all sinful quality. In the third place it denies sin-
fulness of the intense selfishness which manifests it-
self in children before they can intelligently appreci-
ate their relation to the moral law. In the fourth
place, it places every infant in the sinless condition
of Adam before he fejkj>mnoUia^extenUsj^^
-Z^j^T^^ii^Ur^fS^nturies. W "5, n6, >66, .08: Nashville,
South. ISIeth. Pub. House, 1884.
200 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
Pelagian; and in the fifth place, it makes the nniver-
sal allusion of theology and the Church to the Fall
a wretched solecism, since there would be as many
separate falls from sinlessness into sin as there have
been, are and will be, human beings on earth. One
may well pause here and notice, in this conspicuous
instance, the trend of contemporary Arminian specu-
lation to the Semi-Pelagianism of Cassian and Lim-
borch. Indeed, Dr. Miller has no hesitation in avow-
ing himself a theologian of that school. It requires
no argument to show that if Evangelical Arminian-
ism should take on that theological type it will have
renounced the leadership of Wesley, Fletcher and
Watson; notwithstanding Dr. Miller's labored attempt
to evince the contrary.
There is another and apparently more promising
method by which an attempt may be made to meet
the difficulty created by the alleged co-existence in
the infant of corruption with entire innocence. It
will be urged that the same difficulty obtains in the
case of the adult who is actually justified by faith.
His whole guilt is removed by the justifying act, but
yet the principle of corruption remains, and it will
no doubt be said that upon this fact the Calvinist lays
especial emphasis. But —
The removal of guilt and regeneration are insep-
arably related to each other. If one takes place so
must the other. This is admitted by the Arminian
himself No question is here raised in regard to tlie
order in which they occur — that is, whether regener-
ation precedes justification, or the opposite. Nor is
it here made a question whether they occur synchron-
ously, or may be separated by an interval of time.
Objection from Divine Justice. 20 1
What is urged is, that where one of these great
clianges takes place the other will at some time assur-
edly occur. In the divine plan of salvation they are
never disjoined. As the Calvinist would say, he who
has been regenerated will be justified, and as the Ar-
minian would put it, he who has been justified will
be regenerated. No adult is held, by either, to be
merely regenerated or merely justified, merely re-
newed or merely absolved from guilt. There is not
in the case of the justified believer the simple co-ex-
istence of depravity with the removal of guilt. This
inseparable relation of justification and regeneration
the i\rminian concedes with reference to infants dy-
ing in infancy. No human being can be admitted
into heaven guilty and unregenerate. But the weight
of the difficulty lies upon the case of the unregener-
ate infant who lives to adult age. He, according to
the supposition, is absolved from Adam's guilt and
yet is not regenerate. There is the simple, unmod-
ified co-existence of innocence and depravity in his
case, and consequently the analogy between it and
that of the justified believer fails.
If to meet this special difficulty, it be said that not
only are all infants justified from the guilt of Adam's
sin, but that all infants are regenerated, the rejoinder
is, that the Arminian doctrine, so far from teaching
the regeneration of all infants, teaches the contrary ;
and further, it cannot be true that every heathen man
has been regenerated in infancy.
It deserves also to be noticed that while depravity
continues to exist in the justified believer, its oper-
ation is, in two respects, very seriously modified, (i.)
It no longer reigns. It is not ihe dominant principle.
202 Calvinisni and Evangelical Arini)iianism.
Grace reigns. But in the infant unregenerated and
incapable of consciously exercising faith in Christ, de-
pravity is the reigning principle, and in the event of
his growing to maturity will develop as such until
regeneration takes place and faith is exercised for jus-
tification. (2.) In the justified believer depravity is
checked, its development hindered, by the principle
of holiness; and this principle, as it increases in
energy, contributes more and more to the destruction
of corruption. As this cannot be true of the unre-
generate infant, it is obvious that the cases are not
analogous.
Another specific difference between the two cases
lies in the fact that, previously to justification, every
believer has committed conscious sins, and developed,
by his voluntary agency, the principle of depravity.
While he is absolved from guilt, so far as the rectoral
justice of God is concerned, and the retributive con-
sequences of sin are involved, it is consistent with
fatherly justice that the principle of corruption, re-
strained by grace, should remain within him. In-
trinsically, that is, considered not as in Christ, but in
himself, he deserves to eat some of the fruits of his
own doing, and experimentally to feel the bitter-
ness of sin. This vindication of the co-existence of
depravity with justification will not apply to the cir-
cumstances of an infant, who, according to the sup-
position, has been justified from guilt without having
committed any conscious sin.
Moreover, it ought not to escape observation that the
depravity which continues in the justified believejr is
so overruled by God's government of grace as to secure
the ends of a wholesome discipline. Now, it may be
1
Objection from Divine Jnsfiee. 203
doubted whether any infant is, as such, susceptible of
cisciplinary rule; but, even if that hypothesis were
admissible in relation to infants dying in infancy, it
cannot be shown that depravity is overruled so as to
further the ends of a salutary discipline in the cases
of infants who do not die in infancy, but live to adult
age and palpably die in their sins.
These considerations are sufficient to show that the
objection pressed against the Arminian doctrine of the
absolution of every infant from the guilt of Adam's
sin, that it involves the co-existence of entire inno-
cence and depravity, cannot be met by an appeal to
the case of the justified believer.
Secondly, the view that Adam's guilt has been re- \ *f,^V^^
moved from every infant cannot be harmonizd with
the existence of depravity, whether regarded from the
point of view of its origin, or of its results. Wesley
and Watson admit that it is penal in its origin. But
if so, as the guilt of Adam's sin is removed from the
infant by virtue of the atonement, the depravity
which is one of its penal consequences must also be
removed. It is, however, inconsistently maintained
that while the cause is destroyed the effect remains.
Let depravity be contemplated w-ith reference to its
results. It must be admitted that they are penal.
Whoever commits sin is worthy of punishment. This
desert of punishment must be checked by the provis-
ion of vicarious atonement, or penal infliction must
follow as its consequence. In the case of the infant,
w^ho lives to maturity, depravity, it is conceded, is-
sues in conscious acts of sin. Before he is justified
by faith these sins merit punishment. Notwithstand-
ing then the allegred removal of Adam's guilt from
204 Calvinism and Evangelical Anninianism.
the infant, he incurs condemnation when he commits
personal sins ; and this is the natural result of the
existence in him of the principle of corruption. How
is this exposure to incur punishment reconcilable
with the removal of Adam's guilt? Only in one con-
ceivable way : bv his fallino^ into sin throug:h his own
avoidable act. But such a fall is denied in regard to
each individual, as we have seen in a citation from
Dr. Pope. And such a fall as Adam's was when he
first contracted guilt would be out of the question,
since our first father had, previously to his first act of
sin, no principle of depravity, and the infant confess-
edly has. If it be urged that sufficient grace is given
to make the first sinful act and its consequent fall
avoidable, it would follow that each individual falls
as Adam did ; and that is denied. It is evident that
the presence of the principle of corruption in the un-
regenerated infant, who is held to be exempted from
the penal consequences of Adam's sin and yet is not
guilty of conscious transgression,* is a fact which
must prove troublesome to the Evangelical Arminian.^
^ It may be urged that the same reduction to absurdity applies to
the Calviuistic element of the Federal Theology, that the elect
are, in consequence of their virtual or representative justification
in Christ their Covenant Head, absolved from their virtual or rep-
resentative condemnation in Adam their head in the first Covenant.
How can they be conceived to be, in infancy, at the same time
free from guilt and totally depraved ? The answer is, that although
they are virtually justified, they are actually condemned. There
is no contradiction between virtual justification and actual con-
demnation. In the case of the elect who become adults, their ac-
tual condemnation in Adam continues iintil they exercise faith in
Christ and are actually justified. Their actual condemnation and
their depravity go on concurrently until then. In the case of in-
fants, dying in infancy, regeneration implants the principle of holi-
Obicction from Divine Justice. 205
Thirdly, if Adam's guilt is removed from every
infant, the Arminian has to account for spiritual death ^^>Lv*^
as remaining in him. Spiritual death is held by him^v^.v ^'
to be a consequence of Adam's guilt entailed upon
his posterity. Now if the cause be removed the effect
must go with it. But, confessedly, the effect does not
eo. It must therefore be inferred that the cause still
operates to produce it. If then all infants are in a
condition of spiritual death, it cannot be true that
Adam's guilt has been removed from them. It will
not do to say in reply to this that a degree of spiritual
life is imparted to them. For, on that supposition,
some degree of spiritual death remains, as is evident
from the form in which Wesley's statement is pre-
sented by Watson — namely, a portion of spiritual
ness which contains the seed of faith ; and it is not impossible, it is
probable, that God applies to them, notwithstanding the fact that
they cannot exercise faith, the blood of atonement and actually
justifies them. In their case, all guilt and all depravity are alike
removed by sovereign grace at death, and in heaven they will ex-
press their conscious acceptance of the plan by which they were
saved. In the case of the elect, who are regenerated in infancy
and may live to adult age before they exercise faith in Christ and
are actually justified, tliree elements until then co-exist in them :
actual condemnation, the principle of holiness, and the principle
of depravity. There is nothing strange in this supposition, of the
co-existence in them of the principles of holiness and depravity,
seeing that the same co-existence remains after actual justification ;
the difference being that up to that change depravity reigns, and
after it holiness. The Arminian theology, which knows nothing
of the distinction between virtual or representative justification
and actual, inasmuch as it rejects the principle of Representation,
strictly considered, which necessitates* that distinction, labors un-
der all the difficulties which have been mentioned. It holds the
absolution of the infant from all condemnation, in every sense,
and yet maintains the presence in him of depravity — the co-exist-
ence of absolute innocence and the principle of corruption.
2o6 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
death is removed. The portion, then, which is not
removed remains. But the part continuing must be
accounted for; and it could only be accounted for on
the ground that a part at least of Adam's guilt, which
is its cause, continues.
A Fourthly, actual justification is split in two by this
' hypothesis, both as to the thing itself, and as to the
time at which it occurs. For every infant is said to
be justified, so far as Adam's guilt is concerned.
When he has arrived at adult age he is exhorted to
seek justification by faith. If he receive it, it is only
in part. For as in infancy he was actually justified
from Adam's guilt, he can, as an adult, be justified
only from the guilt of his own conscious sins. But
the Scriptures make no such division. They teach
that actual justification is one, having reference as
well to tlie guilt derived from Adam as to that con-
tracted by personal transgressions.
Fifthly, the Evangelical Arminian theology is ii^
consistent with itself in regard to the analogy which
it affirms between the effects of Adam's sin and
Christ's righteousness. In the first place, it admits
that Adam's sin entailed spiritual death upon his
descendants. But as it contends that Adam's guilt is
entirely removed from his posterity by virtue of the
atonement, it should, to be consistent, hold that the
entire effect of that guilt is removed. Tliat would
involve the total removal of spiritual death. On the
contrary, it only concedes the removal of a portion of
j spiritual death. Tlie benefit of the Atonement does
\ not match the injury of the Fall. The life conferred
is not equal to the death inflicted. The analogy
breaks down. In the second place, it admits that the
Objection frof/i Divine Jiisiice. 207
condeniiiation entailed by Adam's sin upon the whole
race was actual, not possible. As it contends for an
analogous effect, mutatis mutandis^ of Christ's right-
eousness upon the whole race, the justification of the
whole race ought to be actual, not possible. But
only in part is it said to be actual : only infants ex-
perience an actual justification, and that from Adam's
guilt. The justification of the infant who lives to
adult age is merely possible. It is conditioned upon
a faith which may never be exercised. The justifica-
tion bestowed by Christ does not match the condem-
nation entailed by Adam. In the third place, it
admits that the ruin resultino^ from Adam's sin was
an actual, not a possible, ruin. The race is "lost and
ruined by the Fall." So the salvation resulting from
Christ's righteousness should be an actual, not pos-
sible, salvation. But the analogy fails. The possible
salvation said to have been won by Christ does not
^tiatch the actual ruin inflicted by Adam: in Adam all
do die; in Christ all may live. Myriads do not
actually live. For to restrict the term life to the
resurrection of the body, and to say that the wicked
will be raised to life in Christ, is to misinterpret the
glorious words of Paul, and destroy their grand sig-
nificance.
(2.) The position must next be considered, that, by
virtue of Christ's atonement, God has given to every
man a degree of spiritual life involving the restoration
of a measure of free-will, so that every man is endued
with sufl[icient ability to comply with the divine re-
quirements. Now, either it is contended that this
infusion of a degree of spiritual life is regeneration,
or that it is not.
2o8 Gcilvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
If it be contended that it is reg^eneration, the reply-
is obvious. It is true that Arniinian writers do not
make this supposition, and therefore it would seem to
be unnecessarily considered here. But if there be an
impartation of spiritual life to those who are admitted
to be spiritually dead, it must be regeneration, even
though it is by Arminians denied to be. The consid-
eration of the hypothesis is therefore, from the neces-
sity of the case, required. Now —
In the first place, Arminians are inconsistent with
themselves in regard to this subject. If every man
who by nature is spiritually dead is by grace made
spiritually alive, it is perfectly manifest that every
man is in infancy born again; for the new birth is
precisely the change in which a principle of spiritual
life is supernatttralty introduced into the soul of the
sinner. To take anv other oround is to o^ainsav the
Scriptures. They represent the change as one in
which the spiritually dead sinner is quickened, and
if the infusion of a degree of spiritual life does not
quicken the soul, language has no meaning. Every
man then is in infancy born again. But Evangelical
Arminians and Evangelical Arminian preachers en-
force upon adults the necessity of being born again.
Why preach the need of the new birth to those who
are already born again? How with consistency can it
be said. You are regenerated, but you must be regen-
erated?
In the second place, if the impartation of a degree
of spiritual life be regeneration, as the purpose of its
bestowal, according to the Arminian theology, is that
the will of the sinner may be assisted in determining
the question of conversion, the regenerating grace of
Objection from Divine JiiUice. 209
the Holy Ghost is reduced into subordination to the
natural will : it is made a minister to incite that will
to take saving action. Surely that cannot be true. If
it be replied that it is the regenerating grace that de-
termines the will, one of the differentiating elements
of the Arminian system is given up, and, to* that ex-
tent, the Calvinistic adopted.
In the third place, either it is maintained that this
degree of spiritual life continues, or that it does not
continue, with the sinner until the moment of his be-
lieving in Christ. If it continue with him through
all changes until he believes, it may be long after he
has reached adult age, how comes it to pass that it
does not prove more successful as an assistant of the
will? Could anything more clearly show the inferi-
ority and subserviency to the natural wnll'of the re-
generating grace of God, than such an hypothesis ?
If it does not continue till the act of believing in
Christ, but may be lost through the obstinate resist-
ance of the sinner's will, is it again imparted, and
again, and again ? Is the series of infusions kept up
until final impenitency ensues and the failure of its
mission stands confessed ; or until the sovereign will
of the sinner vouchsafes compliance with its solicita-
tions ? And is the sinner, before he believes in Christ,
born again an indefinite number of times ? Are there
many spiritual births before that second birth for
which the unconverted sinner is exhorted to pray and
strive ?
If it be contended— and it is by Arminian waiters
contended— that the infusion of a degree of spiritual
life into every man is not regeneration, the answer is:
from the nature of the case it must be. That which
2IO Calvinism and Evangelical Arininianism.
is dead has no degree of life; that wliicli has a degree
of life is not dead. The supposition of the least de-
gree of life destroys the supposition of death. If then
the least degree of spiritual life be infused into every
man, it follows that every man is spiritually alive.
To deny this is to affirm that a man may be spiritually
dead and spiritually alive at one and the same time.
But if, in consequence of the infusion of a degree of
spiritual life into every man, every man is spiritually
alive, every man is regenerated. Every heathen is, in
infancy, regenerated. For, it is the very office of re-
generation to impart spiritual life to the spiritually
dead sinner. It is admitted by all evangelical theo-
logians, including Arminians, that regeneration,
strictly speaking, is God's act in consequence of which
a sinner is born again. If then he cannot be spirit-
ually alive before he is spiritually born, or, what is
the same, born again, he cannot be spiritually alive
before he is regenerated; as he cannot begin to live
spiritually before his new birth, he cannot begin to
live spiritually before his regeneration. Upon this
point we w^ant no clearer proof than is furnished by
Wesley himself "Before" he says, "a child is born
into the world, he has eyes, but sees not : he has ears,
but does not hear. He has a very imperfect use of
any other sense. He has no knowledge of any of the
things of the world, or any natural understanding.
To that manner of existence wdiich he then has
we do not even give the name of life. It is then
only when a man is born that we say he begins to
live."
He then applies the felicitous illustration to the case
of a man "in a mere natural state, before he is born
Objection from Divine Justice. 2ii
of God." ^ This witness is true. To be spiritually
alive is to be born ag^ain. But as to be born again is
to be regenerated, to be spiritually alive is to be re-
generated. One, therefore, fails to see how the Evan-
gelical Arminian can consistently deny that, accord-
ing to his doctrine, every man is in infancy regener-
ated. There is but one conceivable mode in which
this difficulty maybe sought to be avoided. He may
deny that one who has a degree of spiritual life is
spiritually alive ; and it is enough to say of such a
position that its statement is its refutation. But if it
comes to this, that every m^n is affirmed to be regen-
erated in infancy, the doctrine would surpass in ex-
travagance that of baptismal regeneration ; and yet,
by a happy inconsistency, the Evangelical Arminian
utterly rejects that doctrine. Wonders never cease.
One might go on accumulating obstacles in the
path of this remarkable tenet, that God gives a degree
or seed of spiritual life to every man; but more will
not now be said in regard to it, as it is the same with
the doctrine of "sufficient grace" which has already
been partially considered, and will be still more par-
ticularly examined when the objection to the Calvin-
istic doctrine from the divine goodness shall come to
be discussed. It has been shown that tlie Arminian
attempt is vain to escape the difficulty which was
alleged to rest upon him as well as upon the Calvinist
— namely, the reconciliation of the spiritual inability
in which men are born with the justice of God in
punishing them for sin.
3. The Calvinistic solution of this great difficulty,
from the days of Augustin to the present time, is,
^ Serm. on the New Birth.
212 Calvinism and Ez'ano-elical Arminianism
<*>
that men's spiritual inability is not original, but
penal. It is not original, for God conferred upon man
at the creation ample ability to comply with all his
requirements. There was not inserted into his nature
any evil principle from which sin could be developed,
nor any weakness or imperfection which, in the
absence of determining grace, necessitated a fall.
He was, it is true, liable to fall in consequence
of mutability of will, but he was at the same time
able to stand. When, therefore, he sinned, the fault
was altogether his own. He could not lay the blame
upon his natural constitution, and so, by implication,
upon its divine author. He unnecessarily and inex-
cusably revolted against the paternal and beneficent
rule of God, and consequently subjected himself to
the just sentence of a violated law. When lie sinned,
he wantonly, deliberately, wilfully threw away that
spiritual ability with which he had been richly en-
dowed. He disabled himself by his. own act. His
subsequent inability to love God and obey his law
was a necessary part of his punishment. For, the
judicial curse of the divine government, and the
rupture of the spiritual bond which united him to
God as the source of holiness and strength, certainly
involved the withdrawal of grace, and the loss of
ability. Original righteousness was forfeited. In a
word, his inability was penal.
Now, when our first father sinned, he acted not for
himself alone but also for his posterity. He was ap-
pointed by God their federal head and representative.
Consequently, while his act of sin was not theirs con-
sciously and subjectively, for at the time of its com-
mission they had no conscious existence, it was theirs
Objection from Divine Justice. 2 1 3
federally, legally, representatively. The judicial con-
sequences of his first sin were likewise entailed upon
them. "They sinned in him and fell with him in
his first transgression;" they were condemned in
his condemnation; and they lost their spiritual ability
in him. The spiritual inability which was a part of
his punishment is a part of theirs. As the inability
which he brought upon himself did not, and could
not, discharge him from the obligation to obey God,
so neither does theirs relieve them of the same obli-
gation. The spiritual inability of the race, as it was
self-contracted by an avoidable act of rebellion against
God, cannot exempt them from the punishment which
is justly due to their sin. And if it be just for God to
punish them in time, it was just for him to decree the
punishment in eternity. That is to say, the decree of
reprobation is consistent with justice.
4. We have now reached the last point in this re-
gression. We have got back to Adam, and the re-
sponsibility of the race for his first sin. Here the dif-
ference between the Calvinistic and Arminian doctrines
seems to be lessened, and they appear to approximate
each other. For they agree in affirming the account-
ability of mankind for the first sin of the first man,
although they differ as to the mode in which that
accountability is realized; the Arminian contenting
himself with holding the parental relation as ground-
ing it, the Calvinist contending that over and beyond
the parental there was the strictly legal and represen-
tative relation from which the responsibility of the
race is derived. To both parties the question springs
up just here — and it is one of profoundest interest and
importance — W^as it just that the human race should
214 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
be held responsible for the first sin of Adam, their
progenitor, so that the judicial consequences of that
sin are entailed upon them?
It is not necessary here to discuss the question, as
one of fact, whether God entered into a covenant
with Adam which implicated his posterity in his re-
sponsibility. The fact of such a covenant, the fact
that there was some sort of federal constitution in re-
lation to Adam and his posterity, is admitted by
Evangelical Arminians. They admit that the ac-
count given in Genesis of the transactions in the gar-
den of Eden is not allegorical but literal, not mythical
but historical. They hold that the universality of
bodily suffering and death, and of sin working with
the force of an all-pervading law from the moment
that the human faculties begin to expand, proves con-
clusively that in some way guilt and depravity are
inherited from the primitive ancestor of the race, and
are not originated by the conscious acts of each indi-
vidual. Every man at birth is the heir of guilt and
corruption. As then the fact of a federal constitution
of some kind, and of the accountability, in some
sense, of all men as parties to it in their first parent,
is maintained by Evangelical Arminians along with
almost the whole nominal Church, it is not requisite
to enforce the proofs of it which are challenged by
Pelagians and Socinians, Rationalists and Sceptics.
It will be assumed.
But the questions, what the nature of the covenant
was, in what sense Adam was the head and represent-
ative of his posterity, how the federal constitution
affects our conceptions of the justice of God in his
dealings with the human race, — these questions it is
Objection from Divine Justice. 215
vital to the argument to consider. The Evangelical
Arminian charges the Calvinistic doctrine with attri-
buting injustice to God. But as he, with the Calvin-
ist, concedes the hereditary guilt and corruption of
mankind, in consequence of which, notwithstanding
the aids of grace which he alleges are furnished them,
innumerable multitudes actually perish, it is incum-
bent upon him as w^ell as upon the Calvinist to vindi-
cate the divine justice in view^ of these mysterious
but undeniable facts. This he endeavors to accom-
plish in two ways:
(i.) The first is this: God, along w^ith the decree
to permit the fall of the first man and of his posterity
as implicated in his responsibility, and his foreknowl-
edge that the fall thus permitted would take place,
also decreed to provide a redemption which would
match the foreseen evil in all its extent. It is pleaded
that the apparent injustice in holding the race in-
volved in the consequences of their first father^s siu
and fall is relieved by the redemptive provision. The
alleged bearing of this provided redemption upon the
race, in absolving every man from the imputation of
Adamic guilt, and restoring to each a seed of spiritual
life and a competent measure of free will, thus afiford-
ing to all a fair probation, removing from them spir-
itual inability, and rendering it possible for them to
avail themselves of the salvation procured by Christ,
— this has been already discussed. The point now to
be considered is, the allegation of the Evangelical
Arminian theology that without such a decreed pro-
vision of redemption, accompanying the fall of the
race in Adam and intended to counteract its disastrous
results, the justice of God could not be vindicated ;
21 6 Calvi?tism and Evangelical Arminianisui.
but that, on the other hand, the fact of that provision
supplies the desired vindication.
It is difficult, if not impracticable, to ascertain the
catholic doctrines of the Evangelical Arminian system.
One theologian teaches a doctrine which another
either denies or modifies; 'and there is no common,
recognized standard by which these differences could
be judged. In regard to the positions just mentioned,
for example, some hold that the purpose to permit the
Fall with the entailment of its consequences upon all
mankind, and the purpose to provide redemption as
an antidote, were concurrent. Neither was the re-
deeming purpose conditioned by the purpose to permit
the Fall, nor was it pre-supposed by the purpose
touching the Fall. They must be conceived as con-
current, neither pre-supposing the other. With ref-
erence to this view it is sufficient to say that it is
neither conceivable nor credible. We are oblio-ed to
think one purpose as pre-supposing another, not in
the order of time — for that order is inapplicable to
God's eternal purposes — but in the order of nature or
of thought. How could the conception of redemption
exist without the pre-supposition of beings to be
redeemed ? And how could the conception of such
beings obtain without the pre-supposition of a fall into
sin and misery ?
Again, it has, with more ground in reason, been
maintained that the purpose of redemption, in the
order of thought, preceded and conditioned the pur-
pose to permit the Fall and, indeed, all other pur-
poses, even that to create. But —
In the first place, this view is inconsistent with the
usual statement in the Arminian scheme of the order
Objection from Divine Justice. 217
of the divine purposes, — namely the purpose to create;
the purpose to permit the Fall; the purpose to redeem;
the purpose to call; the purpose to elect.
In the second place, it has no clear support from
Scripture. It has been supposed to be required by
such passages as Colossians i. 16, where it is stated
that all things were created, not only by Christ, but
for him. This statement, however, does not neces-
sarily imply that all things were created by the Son
of God and for him, as he is Redeemer. And unless
that could be proved to be the meaning of the passage,
the view under consideration is not substantiated by
it. No doubt the world was made for the glory of the
eternal Son of God, but, for aught that appears to the
contrary, that end might have been secured had sin
not taken place, and had there consequently been no
redemption. It is right to say that creation has by
divine decree become a magnificent theatre for the
display of the transcendent glory of redemption; but
that is very different from saying that creation was
decreed in order to be the theatre of redemption.
In the third place, this scheme of the divine decrees
is liable to some of the difficulties, metaphysical and
moral, to which that of the Supralapsarian is exposed.
A decree to redeem merely creatable beings, or even
created but unfallen beings, is inconceivable, if not
self-contradictory ; and if the decree of redemption,
in the order of thought, preceded the decrees to create
and to permit the Fall, creation and the Fall were
means necessary to the accomplishment of the re-
demptive end. That would run athwart the doctrine
of a simple permission of the Fall; and, further, since
a laroe section of the human race, according to the
2i8 Calvinism a)id Evangelical Arviinianism.
admission of Arminians, are not actually saved, the
end contemplated by the decree of redemption would,
to that extent, fail to be accomplished and the divine
will be defeated.
This view has also difficulties peculiar to itself. For,
as the foreknowledge of a permitted fall could not, in
the order of thought, have preceded the decree to
create, since merely possible beings could not be per-
mitted actually to fall, and it is impossible to see how
the certainty that such beings would actually fall could
be foreknown, the decree to redeem would have had
no redeemable objects upon which to terminate, and
therefore is inconceivable. x\nd still further, if it be
contended that such a decree was possible, it follows
that as it fails, in its execution, to secure the final re-
demption of all, and actually issues in that only of
some, of the human race, it would be subject to the
very objection which Arminians urge against the Cal-
vinistic decree of election.
But, w^hatever be the relation which Evangelical
Arminians predicate of the purpose to permit the Fall
and the purpose to redeem, whether the one precedes
the other, or they are absolutely concurrent, the dif-
ficulty which they seek to avoid by making the de-
cree to redeem complementary to the decree to per-
mit the Fall still presses upon them. They do not,
by this means, vindicate the justice of God in impli-
cating the race in the responsibilities attending Adam's
sin. It is held, let it be remembered, that it would
have been unjust in God to treat the race as respon-
sible for Adam's sin, had he not purposed to provide
redemption from its consequences.
First, It deserves to be remarked that EvanQrelical
Objection from Divine Justice. 219
Anniiiians are accustomed to enforce the analogy be-
tween the sufferings of men for the sin of Adam and
the sufferings of children for the sins of their parents.
Now, either it is just that children should suffer for
the sins of their parents, or it is unjust. If it be said
to be just, then, if the analogy hold, it is just that
Adam's children should suffer for his sin. If it be
said to be unjust, God's ordinary providence is
charged with injustice ; for it is a fact that children
do suffer for the sins of their parents. Either alter-
native is damaging to the Arminian view. Let it be
observed, that this argument is addressed to the con-
cessions of Arminians. The analogy which they
plead I regard as deceptive, and the argument based
upon it as inconclusive.
Secondly, If the implication of the race in the con-
sequences of Adam's sin would have been unjust
apart from the purpose of redemption, it would followj
that the prevention of the injustice must be conceivedj
as having been the demand of justice and not a freei
dictate of grace. A measure by which injustice is
prevented or removed cannot, without an abuse of
language, be denominated a fruit of grace. It is a
product of justice. And so the grace of God is no
more grace. The redemption of sinners from the
consequences of the Fall is required by justice. The
sinner, therefore, instead of extolling divine grace
should celebrate divine justice ; instead of shouting,
Grace! grace! he should shout. Justice! justice! The
truth is, that a constitution of things by which the
interposition of divine justice is required to prevent
or remove the effects of divine injustice is, from the
nature of the case, as inconceivable as it is impossible.
220 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism,
The only relief to the Arminian from the pressure of
this difficulty would lie in denying that men, in any
sense, suflfer on account of Adam's sin, and that
would throw him into collision with the doctrine of
Scripture, the facts of experience and the results of
observation.
Thirdly, If, apart from the provision of redemption,
the constitution by which the race was involved in
the consequences of Adam's sin would have been in-
trinsically unjust, the redemptive provision accom-
panying it could not possibly relieve that intrinsic
injustice. It would inhere in the very nature of such
a constitution. The redemption provided might de-
liver men from its evil results, but it could not deliver
God from the charge of having instituted an arrange-
ment in itself unjust. It would relieve the disaster,
but leave the original wrong untouched. The conse-
quence of the injustice would be removed, but the in-
justice would abide. No fact can be undone. To state
the case differently: if a federal constitution by which
Adam's descendants became responsible for his sin
would have been in itself unjust, the co-ordination
with it of a redeeming purpose could not cancel the
injustice, for that purpose could only take effect after
the wrong had been inflicted. Men must have suf-
fered before they could be actually redeemed. If not,
from what would they be redeemed ? The suffering,
consequently, must while it lasts be conceived as hav-
ing been unjustly imposed.
Fourthly, If it was intended, in order to avoid in-
justice, that the provision of redemption should de-
liver men from the sufferings entailed upon them by
Adam's fall, then it was necessary, in order to the
Objection from Divine Justice. 22 1
attainiiieiit of the end contemplated, that all those
snfferings shonld be removed. For, if any part of
them remained, to that extent the injnstice would
not be repaired. And this difficulty weighs especi-
ally upon those who hold that those sufferings are
penal. If it be replied, as replied it must be, that
the redemptive provision was not designed to operate
ipso facto in the removal of suffering, but that such
removal is conditioned upon the acceptance of the
offer of redemption, and that ability is given to men
to accept the offer, the difficulty is not discharged.
For, in the first place, infants can neither understand
nor accept the offer; yet they suffer. The injustice
is not removed from them. It would be idle to say
that they suffer disciplinarily, for, as infants, they are
unsusceptible of discipline. They cannot perceive
the ends of suffering. And further, disciplinary suf-
fering pre-supposes penal. It cannot be justly im-
posed upon beings who were not, in the first instance,
either consciously or putatively guilty. In the
second place, the removal of injustice inflicted upon-
adults cannot, consistently with justice, be condi-
tioned upon their voluntary acceptance of an offer to
remove it. Justice requires the unconditional un-
doing of injustice which has been done. This diffi-
culty becomes all the more aggravated when it is
considered that the acceptance of the redeeming
provision is opposed by the corrupt nature derived
from the Fall. Either God can remove the conse-
quences of the Fall, or he cannot. If he can and does
not, he perpetuates the injustice which he is supposed
to have inflicted. If he cannot, how did the pro-
vision of redemption come to be conceived in his
222 Calvinism and Evangelical Armijiianism.
mind as calculated to relieve the intrinsic injustice
of the federal constitution? He would in devising it
have known that he could not make it effectual to
relieve that injustice. If it be said, that he cannot,
in accordance with the nature he bestowed upon man,
act inconsistently with man's free will, the answer is,
that when he determined to provide redemption he
must have foreseen that limitation upon its applica-
bility as a remedy, and therefore his inability fully to
remove the inherent injustice of the federal constitu-
tion. In the third place, even the offer of redemption
is not made actually to every man. Some have not
the opportunity furnished them of accepting it.
Myriads of the heathen never heard of it. How then
does the provision of redemption remove the injustice
involved in the sufferings induced upon them by the
Fall? If it be urged, that the atonement of Christ
indirectly benefits them, without their knowledge of
it, the reply is obvious, that their sufferings continue.
They are not benefited to the extent of their removal.
Nor can it be pleaded that like adults in Christian
lands they bind their sufferings upon themselves by
rejecting the tendered remedy. For how can they
reject a remedy which was never proffered them ? To
say that they have some knowledge of the gospel
through tradition from the patriarchal, or any other,
era, is but to trifle with a solemn subject. If finally
it be said, that the heathen in relation to the gospel
scheme are in a condition similar to that of infants,
that will not answer, for we have seen that the suffer-
ings of infants cannot be adjusted to the theory that
the provision of redemption checked the intrinsic
injustice of the Adamic constitution.
Objection from Divine Justice. 223
Under the conviction that it is one of the key-
positions of the Evangelical Arniinian scheme, I have
thus criticised with some minuteness the view, that
the divine purpose to provide redemption for man-
kind, which was co-ordinate with the constitution
implicating them in the judicial consequences of their
first father's sin, prevented the injustice otherwise
chargeable upon that constitution.
(2.) The second way, in which Evangelical Armin-
ians attempt to vindicate the justice of God in view
of the hereditary guilt and corruption of all men, is
to be found in their doctrine concernino: the nature
of the relation sustained by the first man to the race.
That doctrine is: that God made a covenant with
Adam as a parental l>ead representing his posterity,
by virtue of which they, having been in his loins, are
justly subjected to the consequences of his sin. They
were in him as children are in a father ; one with
him because of, and simply because of, the parental
and filial relation. As they w:ere thus — to use Wes-
ley's words — "contained in Adam," it followed that
when he sinned the consequences of his fatal act were
deserved by them. In support of this view they ap-
peal to the analogy of providence. Children, without
their conscious agency, are involved in the disastrous
consequences of their parents' sins. They suflfer be-
cause their fathers were criminals ; and to object, on
the ground of injustice, to the primal constitution
through which all men experience the injurious re-
sults of their first father's fall into sin is to impeach
the justice of God in his ordinary and acknowledged
dealings with men.
It is true that some Arniinian theologians affirm
224 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
that Adam was "a public person and a legal repre-
sentative;'" and tliat this language taken by itself
would imply that they do not regard him as having
been simply a parental head. But, two considera-
tions clearly show that notwithstanding these terms
by which they appear to qualify the merely parental
headship of the first man, merely parental headship
is wdiat they really hold. The first is their unwilling-
ness to admit that the race had a proper probation in
Adam which was closed by his fall into sin. The
second is their denial that the posterity of Adam in
any sense committed his first sin and are on that ac-
count chargeable with its guilt. These facts prove
that they do not maintain, but on the contrary deny,
the strictly representative character of the first man.
For, if he had been not only a parental head and
trustee, but over and beyond that a legal representa-
tive, of the race, they would have had their probation
in him, and must, in accordance wnth the essential
principle of representation, be considered as having
legally and constructively performed his act in com-
mitting the first sin and as being therefore chargeable
with its guilt. We shall get a precise conception of
the Evangelical Arminian doctrine concerning the
headship of Adam by comparing it with the Calvin-
istic. The Evangelical Arminian holds that when
God created Adam a parental head, he in the same
act and by virtue of it created him a federal head. In
becoming the first father, Adam, of necessity, became
the representative, of mankind. Only as he was,
and because he was, father was he representative.
The Calvinist holds that after God had created Adam
'Watson, Theo. Inst., vol. ii. pp. 52, 53.
Objection from Divine Justice. 225
a parental head he, by a free determination of his
will, appointed him a federal head and legal represen-
tative, and then entered into a covenant of life with
him, suspending justification for himself and his pos-
terity as his constituents upon his perfect obedience
during a limited time of trial. In the one case he
was created a federal head because he was created a
parental head, the representative relation being no
more than is involved in the parental. In the other,
he was not created a federal head and representative,
but, by a free act from wdiich his IMaker might have
abstained, was appointed and constituted the bearer
of that transcendently responsible office. It is plain
that, according to the Evangelical Arminian theology,
Adam was in no other sense a federal head and legal
representative than as he was the parental head of the
human race. The relation he sustained was that of
mere parental headship with such responsibilities and
consequences as it naturally involves. Accordingly,
I shall endeavor to show that such a relation will not
bear the strain that is put upon it.
First, Evangelical Arminian theologians them-
selves, as we have seen, 'explicitly acknowledge the
fact that the visitation upon the race of the bitter
consequences of Adam's sin, merely in virtue of their
relation to him as a parental head, cannot be recon-
ciled with our conceptions of the divine justice. In
itself considered, such a constitution would have been
unjust. In order to its having been adopted as a part
of the divine scheme of government it was necessary
that its intrinsic injustice should be destroyed by an
extrinsic connection with a purpose of redemption in
consequence of which the damage done by the Fall
15
226 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
should be amply repaired. Taken by itself, then, the
parental headship of Adam, as foreknown to issue in
the fall of the race, is confessed by Evangelical Arniin-
ians themselves to be incapable of being hrirmonized
with justice. But it has in these remarks been al-
ready shown that its connection with a redeeming
purpose does not relieve this difficulty. It is not vin-
dicated from the charge of inherent injustice by its
association with the purpose of God to provide re-
demption. If, therefore, according to the admission of
its advocates, the constitution by which Adam was
made the parental head of the race was intrinsically
unjust, it is impossible by an appeal to it to establish
the justice of God in inflicting the results of his sin
upon them. The difficulty raised by our intuition of
justice instead of being met is aggravated. A pro-
cedure confessed to have been unjust is vindicated by an
unjust constitution in which it originated! Arminians
themselves being judges, the mere parental headship
of Adam will not carry the weight imposed upon it.
Secondly, It is one of the curious inconsistencies of
Evangelical Arminian divines that, having acknowl-
edged the injustice of the constitution involving the
race in responsibility for the sin of Adam their par-
ental head conceived apart from the purpose of God
to redeem them, they proceed to illustrate the justice
of that constitution by citing the analogous case of
the ordinary parental relation and its consequences
upon children. They affirm that it is at one and the
same time intrinsically unjust and intrinsically just.
The soundest exponents of the Evangelical Arminian
system maintain that the sufferings entailed upon
Adam's posterity by his sin are in their nature penal.
Objection from Divine Justice. 227
They are not mere calamities; they are_^punishments.
Temporal death, spiritual death, liability to eternal
(^eath,— these, they justly contend, are not to be re-
garded as simply our misfortune. They are in some
sense the results of our own fault— we have, in some
way, deserved them. The Pelagianizing utterances
of such writers as Miner Raymond, who scouts this
view, cannot by a candid critic be considered as rep-
resentative of Evangelical Arminianism even in its
present attitude. If they are, it is not the system of
Wesley, Fletcher and Watson: it is far gone from
that system.
Now, it is a fundamental principle of God's moral
government that none but the guilty are held liable
to punishment. Before one can be justly punished it
must be proved that he did some wrong act, or is the
culpable author of some wrong disposition inherent
in him. Before he can share another's punishment,
he must have shared the other's fault: he must, in
some sense, be justly held as particeps criminis.
This is a principle of human law, and in that regard
it reflects the divine. In what sense, then, are chil-
dren now the sharers of their parents' acts? They
are different persons from them, and therefore their
personality cannot be considered as merged into that
of their parents. The acts on account of which they
suffer may have been committed before they were
born. They could not therefore have consciously
joined in their performance. Their parents are not,
strictly speaking, their legal representatives, so that
their acts, although not consciously and subjectively,
would yet be legally, representatively, putatively, the
acts of^ their children. These suppositions exhaust
228 Calinnisni and EvauQ-cIical Anninianism
c^
the possibilities in the case, and as neither of them is
true, it follows that children do not share the guilt of
their parents, and therefore cannot be justly punished
for it. They suffer on account of the evil deeds of
their parents. That fact is announced in the Deca-
logue, and abundantly established by the ordinary
course of providence; and in view of it the respon-
sibilities of parents are seen to be nothing less
than tremendous. But these sufferings are not pun-
ishments; they are calamities, except in cases in
which the children imitate the wickedness of their
parents, and so by their own conscious and voluntary
acts make their parents' guilt their own. When they
incur the guilt they deserve the punishment. Until
then their sufferings are not penal. The sufferings
of an infant in its cradle cannot be regarded as penal
inflictions for the sins of its immediate parents.
This important distinction between punishment
and calamity is distinctly asserted by God himself
in his Word. He commanded Moses to embody this
provision in his code : "The fathers shall not be put
to death for the children ; neither shall the children
be put to death for the fathers : every man shall be
put to death for his own sin."^ Accordingly, we are
told that when Amaziah, the son of Joash, king of
Judah ascended the throne, he put to death the men
who had murdered his father, but remembering the
divine law he did not inflict the same doom upon
their children. The record is as follows: "And it
came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed
in his hand, that he slew his servants which had
slain the kimr his father. But the children of the
Deut. xxiv. i6.
Objection from Divine Justice. 229
murderers he slew not : according to that which is
written in the book of the law of IMoses, wherein the
Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be
pnt to death for the children, nor the children be put
to death for the fathers : but every man shall be pnt
to death for his own sin." ^ The same x^rinciple of
procedure is affirmed in the eighteenth chapter of
Ezekiel : "What mean ye, that ye use this proverb
concerning the land of Israel, saying. The fathers
have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are
set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall
not have occasion any more to use this proverb in
Israel. Behold, all souls are mine ; as the soul of
the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the
soul that sinneth, it shall die." If a righteous man,
continues the Lord by the mouth of the prophet,
beget a son who doeth wickedly, the son shall bear
his^ own iniquity ; he shall surely die. If a wicked
man have a son who doeth righteously, he shall not
bear the iniquity of his father ; he sliall surely live.
"Yet ye say. The way of the Lord is not equal.
Hear now, O house of Israel : Is not my way equal?
Are not your ways unequal?" Here the equity of
the divine administration is asserted because it pro-
ceeds upon the principle that every man is rewarded
or punished for his own conduct. No one suffers
penally because of his father's sins. His teeth are
not set on edge because his father ate sour grapes,
but thev are set on edge because he himself has eaten
sour grapes.
The conclusion from this argument is that, if it be
a principle of the divine government that children
1 2 Kiui^s xiv. 5, 6.
230 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
are not dealt with retributively and punitively for the
sins of- their parents, it follows that Adam's children
could not be justly punished for his sin, on the sup-
position that he was merely their parental head.
Either, then, we must give up the alleged analogy
between Adam's relation to his posterity and that of
ordinary parents to their children, or, maintaining
that analogy, we must charge God with an unjust
deviation from the principles of his moral govern-
ment in punishing Adam's children, for the sin of
one wdio was simply a parental head. No one who
fears God can hesitate as to the choice between these
alternatives. He is shut up to the conclusion that as
Adam's children are punished for his sin, he could
not have been merely a parental head. He must have
sustained to them another and different relation. Of
course this argument will have no force with one who
adheres to the analogy and at the same time denies
the penal character of men's inherited sufferings.
But as the Evangelical Arminian of the old school is
not a Pelagian, it has a powerful bearing upon his
position.
Let it be distinctly understood that in contending
against the view that children are punitively dealt
with for the sins of their parents, it is not intended
to say that their sufferings are in no sense penal. It
is not conceivable that under a perfectly just govern-
ment any moral agent could suffer unless his suffering
be in the first instance, in some sense, penal. Men
are not punished for the sins of their immediate pa-
jrents, how much soever they may suffer for them; but
Ithey are punished for the sin of Adam, and hence the
I conclusion is that he must liave been more than a
Objection from Divine Justice, 231
father. i\s to those Anninian writers who boldly
take the infidel position that no man is pnnished for
the sin of Adam, it is enough to press the question,
How, then, under the government of a just God are
men born to suffering at all ? How is it that infants
suffer? Even if the ground be taken that those in-
fants who are regenerated and die in infancy are in
some inexplicable way disciplined through suffering
for glor>', wliat becomes of the case of those who live
to adult age, and die unregenerate, who suffer in in-
fancy, suffer in mature age and suffer in hell forever?
Were their sufferings in infancy disciplinary ? To say
tliat suffering is natural, that is, that it is the legiti-
mate result of an original, natural constitution, is to
impeach alike the justice and the benevolence of God.
The sufferings of all men partake of a penal charac-
ter until they are by grace made spiritual children of
God and justified through the merits of the sinner's
atoning Substitute. Punishment then is changed
into discipline — the Judge gives way to the Father.
But as the argument is not with Pelagians and skep-
tics, but with those who profess to be evangelical, no
more needs to be said upon this particular point.
Thirdly, The' theory that Adam was simply a
parental head of mankind, only responsible for such
consequences in regard to them as that relation
carries with it, makes it necessary to hold that guilt
and corruption were derived from him to them by
propagation through the generative channel. The
principle of derivation is that like begets like. There
are insuperable difficulties in the way of that doctrine.
In tlie first place, it is impossible to prove that legal
guilt and moral qualities are transmitted by propaga-
232 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
tion from father to son. The theory involves a doc-
trine which is unsusceptible of proof. It is conse-
quently an inadequate account of the relation between
the leo^al o-niltiness and moral state of Adam's de-
scendants on the one hand and his sinful act on the
other. In the second place, if the supposition of
propagation be admitted, no proof of its justice can
be furnished. How was it grounded? Why did
Adam propagate a guilty and corrupt progeny? Are
his children's teeth set on edge, because he as their
father ate sour grapes? The soul that sinneth, it
shall die. But, according to Arminians, infants
could not have committed Adam's sinful act, and
they cannot consciously sin. Still, they are admitted
to be at birth, by virtue of their relation to their first
father, guilty and depraved, and they actually suffer
and die. Their teeth are set on ^^%^^ but they did
not eat sour grapes. In the third place, if the theory
of propagation be true, how comes it to pass that all
Adam's sins have not entailed their baleful conse-
quences upon his posterity? It is admitted that they
are affected by only his first sin. How is this limita-
tion to be accounted for? Will it, with Thomas
Aquinas, be said that only the first sin corrupts the
nature, and on the contrary all subsequent sins of
Adam and of all his posterity only the person ?^ This
would be an appeal to the theory of Numerical Iden-
tity of nature in Adam and his descendants, and tliat
theory the Evangelical Arminian rejects ; and besides
he concedes the personal responsibility of men for
Adam's fall. That explanation, therefore, will not
^Summa, ii., i. qu. 81, art. 2, as quoted by Miiller, Ouis. Dod.
Sin, ^T>1. ii., p. 372,
Objection from Divine Justice. 233
answer. Will it be said, that, although the fallen
nature is propagated and without special divine
action would carry with it the consequences of other
sins of Adam than the first, it pleased God to limit
the imputation of guilt to the first sin? The reply
would be, that the supposition, upon the mere theory
of propagation, is inadmissible. For, wherever there
is sin, it involves guilt, and the non-imputation of
the guilt would, under a just government, be impos-
sible, without atonement made for it after it had been
incurred. Upon this theory, it would be as illegiti-
mate to suppose the non-imputation of the guilt of
other sins than the first to the propagated guilty and
corrupt nature, as to suppose the non-imputation of the
guilt of other sins than his first to Adam personally.
Will it be said, that the limitation of imputed guilt to
the first sin is to be referred to the federal constitution ?
The answer would be, that the explanation would be
borrowed from a theory of strictly legal representa-
tion, different from and superadded to parental re-
presentation, which is rejected by the Evangelical
Arminian. This appeal would therefore be to him
incompetent In the fourth place, if the theory of
propagation were true it would follow that Adam
when reijenerated would have beootten res^enerate
children. But such a position is not maintained
even by its advocates. If in order to remove this
difficulty the ground be taken that the nature is pro-
pagated according to the original type and that is
sinful, the reply is, as Dr. Thorn well has suggested,
that the original type, that is, in the first instance,
was holy, and a holy nature ought therefore to be
propagated.
234 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
Fourthly, The theory of the mere parental headship
of Adam cannot be adjusted to the analogy, clearly
taught in Scripture, between the first Adam and the
second. The first is declared to have been a figure or
t\'pe of the second; "not that he was," as John Owen
profoundly observes, "an instituted type ^ ordained for
that only end and purpose, but only that in what he
was, and what he did, with what followed thereupon,
there was a resemblance between him and Jesus
Christ."^ The meaning is that the principle upon
which the first Adam stood related to his posterity is
the same with that which grounded the relation of the
second to his seed, — they both acted in accordance
with the principle of representation. As condemnation
passed upon Adam's posterity on account of his disobe-
dience, so justification passed upon Christ's posterity
on account of his obedience. This is clear, and it is
admitted by both parties to this question. Now, if
condemnation came upon Adam's seed because he as
their father sinned, it would follow that justification
comes upon Christ's seed because he as their father
obeyed. The principle must be the same in both
cases, or the analogy is destroyed. Was it parental
headship which in Adam's case grounded the justice
of condemnation? So must it be parental headship
which in Christ's case grounds the justice of justifica-
tion. But neither Calvinist nor Arminian takes that
view of justification. Both hold that while it is true
that Christ's people are born of him by his Spirit, and
so holiness is communicated to them, it is also true
that justification is derived from him in another way.
He did not as a merely parental head secure justifica-
^ WorJzs, Goold's Ed., vol. lo, p. 353.
Objection from Divine Justice. 235
tion, but as a representative and substitute in law.
But if Christ was, strictly speaking, a legal represen-
tative and not merely a parental head, so must Adam
have been, or the analogy between them breaks down.
Further, if it be contended — as it is by Watson —
that as Adam was a parental head, so Christ is a spir-
itual head— as the former was a natural parent, so the
latter is a spiritual parent, it would follow from the
analogy that justification can only flow from Christ to
his spiritual children. And as Evangelical Arminians
do not hold that all men are regenerate and therefore
Christ's spiritual children, justification could not have
been secured for all men. They are thus reduced to
self-contradiction. If they deny that all men are thq
spiritual children of Christ, they deny that jnstifica-f
tion was secured for all men, and thus admit the Cal-
vinistic doctrine of particular atonement. If they
affirm that all men are the spiritual children of Christ,
just as all men are naturally the children of Adam,
they deny their own doctrine of the necessity of the
new birth, their own admission that all men are not
actually born again, and the indubitable testimony of
Scripture. To say that the heathen are all regener-
ate is to gainsay the Bible and fact alike. It is clear
that the Arminian doctrine of the parental headship
of Adam will not square with the facts of Christ's
case, and therefore cannot be adjusted to the scrip-
tural account of the analogy between the first and the
second Adam.
Fifthly, A decisive consideration is, that upon the
Evangelical Arminian theory neither Adam nor his
descendants could ever have been justified. It is not
here intended to dcnv that if God had been pleased
236 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
to enter into a covenant with Adam as an individual,
apart from a representative relation to his posterity,
in which he promised him life upon condition of per-
fect obedience for a limited time of trial, he might
have attained to justification. Nor is it impossible
to suppose that God may, had he pleased, have entered
into a similar covenant with each individual of his
posterity, in which case each would have stood upon
his own foot and have had the opportunity of secur-
ing justification. On either of these suppositions,
the principle of representation would have been ex-
cluded, and that of individual probation employed.
God was not pleased to adopt this mode of dealing
with Adam or his descendants. He collected all the
'individuals of the race into unity upon the first man
jappointed as their federal head and legal represent-
jative, embraced them with him in a common proba-
|tion, and promised to him and to them in him justifi-
cation upon condition of his perfect obedience for a
specified and definite period. If it be supposed that
neither of these methods of procedure was employed
in relation to the first man and his descendants, the
impossibility of justification would be conceded. If
a special covenant arrangement did not limit the time
of obedience, the naked, unmodified demand of mere
law would have been in force. The consequence
would necessarily have resulted, that no point in the
endless existence of the subject of law could have
been reached at which he could have appeared before
God saying, I have finished the obedience assig-ned
me and ask for my reward. The answer to such a
claim, were it supposable, would inevitably be. Thou
hast an immortality of obedience yet before thee,
Objection f^oj.'i Divi)ic Justice. 237
with the possibility of a fall. Ml justification, in tlie
proper, scriptural sense of the term, can be conceived
as possible except upon the ground of a completed
obedience ; and as no obedience can be completed un-
less there be a definite limitation of the time in which
it is to be offered, a theory which throws out of ac-
count such limitation fails to provide for the possi-
bility of justification. Now the Evangelical Arminiau
theory is open to this fatal objection. It makes no
mention of a limitation of the time of obedience even
in regard to Adam personally considered, and it de-
nies that his' descendants had a strict, legal probation
in him. Suppose then — and the supposition is legiti-
mated by the doctrine of a mere permission of the
Fall — that Adam had stood in integrity and were
standing in integrity now, how could he have been
justified? Perpetual obedience with its accompanying-
contingency of fall would be his duty still as it was
his duty at first. Of course, too, there would be no
justification of his posterity in an unjustified head.
To say that his righteousness, although incomplete
and defectible, might be imputed to them, or accrue
to their benefit, would be very far froni saying that
they would be justified on its account. As it could
not ground his justification, it could not theirs.
This consideration is specially illuminated in the
light of the scriptural analogy between Christ and
Adam. The time of Christ's obedience was limited.
He declared that he had twelve hours in which to
walk and that he must work the works of him that
sent him while it was day: the night was coming in
which no man could work. Accordingly when he
had completed his obedience, l.e triumphantly ex-
238 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism,
claimed amidst his dying agonies, "It is finished."
Not only, therefore, was he jnstified from the volun-
tarily assumed and imputed guilt of his people's in-
iquities which were laid upon him, but his finished
righteousness was capable of being imputed to his
seed and of constituting the ground of their justifica-
tion. It is too obvious to need pressing that if iVdam's
case was parallel to that of Christ, the time of his
probationary obedience must have been limited to
condition the possibility of his justification and that
of his seed. The Evangelical Arminian theory con-
tains no such element and therefore signally breaks
down.
The ways, in which Evangelical Arminian theolo-
gians endeavor to vindicate God's justice in the con-
stitution by virtue of which the consequences of
Adam's first sin are entailed upon his race, have thus
been subjected to examination and their insufficiency
has been exhibited.
The question now is, What, according to the Cal-
vinistic conception, is the scriptural method of recon-
ciling the implication of the race in the consequences
of Adam's first sin with the justice of God ? And let
it be borne in mind that this question is subordinate
to the ultimate one which is under consideration —
namely, whether the Calvinistic doctrines of election
and reprobation are, as charged, inconsistent with the
divine justice.
Both parties to the question in hand admit the ex-
istence of an Adamic covenant: a federal transaction
of some sort is conceded. The Calvinistic doctrine
involves these elements: That, under the Covenant
of Works, God appointed Adam a legal representative
Objection from Divine Justice. 239
of his posterity ; that lie and they were one in law ;
that his acts were legally and representatively their
acts, on the principle that what one does by a repre-
sentative he himself does; that justification, that is,
confirmation in holiness and happiness, was promised
to Adam and his posterity on condition of his perfect
obedience for a limited time, and death was threatened
in the event of disobedience; and that as a conse-
quence of all this mankind had their legal probation
in Adam, so that had he stood and been justified they
would in him have stood and been justified, and as he
fell and was condemned they in him fell and were
condemned. In support of this doctrine the follow-
ing considerations are submitted :
First, The fact being admitted by Evangelical Ar-
tninians of a covenant with Adam which included his
posterity, so that they are involved in the consequences
pertaining to his first sin, it follows that if, as has
been shown, parental headship implying only such
federal responsibilities as it is conceived to carry with
it naturally and necessarily was not, and could not
consistently with justice have been, the relation be-
tween the first man and his descendants which
grounded their judicial condemnation and penal suf-
ferings, that relation must have been one subsisting
between him as a strictly legal representative and
them as his legal constituents. This is the only other
alternative which is admissible. The conceded fed-
eral principle rules out the theory of a numerical
identity between Adam and his posterity. Upon that
theory a federal relation would have been a superfluity.
As each man came into individual existence he would
be chargeable not with Adam's sin imputed to him,
240 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianisni.
but with a sin subjectively and tlierefore strictly and
properly his own. This would be to upset the paral-
lelism asserted by Paul between Adam and Christ. As
numerical identity is grounded in nature, the analogy
would require the identity of all men w-ith Christ, as
well as with Adam. Human nature obeyed in Christ
as it disobeyed in Adam. As the sin of the nature is
imputed to it on the one hand, so on the other would
be its righteousness. As all men are thus justly con-
demned, all men would thus with equal justice be
justified. But it is absurd to say that human nature,
that is, all men, subjectively wrought righteousness
in Christ; and it would be almost as absurd to say
that his seed subjectively obeyed in him. It is plain
that the righteousness of Christ is imputed upon a
totally different principle. So, the analogy holding,
must the sin of Adam. It is evident that the theory
of numerical identity is inconsistent with the federal
principle. The same is true of the hypothesis of an
ante-mundane existence in which every human being
fell from an estate of holiness by his own individual
sin. If we adopt the supposition of a covenant be-
tween God and Adam, we w^ould seem to be shut up
to an election between the doctrine of parental head-
ship and that of strict legal representation.
Secondly, The analogy between Christ and Adam
proves that our first parent must have been the legal
representative of his seed. The relation which he
sustained to his posterity, grounding their implication
in his act, must, as to the principle involved, have
been like that which Christ bears to his seed; other-
wise the analogy would be destroyed. Now, was
Christ a legal representative of his people?
Objection from Divine Justice. 241
The animals which were sacrificed under the old
dispensation were legal substitutes for the^ guilty
persons for whom they were offered, that is, they
legally represented the worshippers who presented
them. They typified Christ the Lamb of God who
was offered a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice for sin-
ners. It is certainly the representative and not the
parental relation which here comes into view. In
Galatians Paul declares: "Christ hath redeemed us
from the curse of the law, beingniade a curse for us. " '
In 2 Corinthians he enounces the same great truth of
legal substitution: "He hath made him who knew
no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him."' Peter clearly sets
forth the same fact: " He bore our sins in his own
body on the tree." It is needless to urge the consid-
eration that these apostolic statements could not have
been true of Christ as a parental head, but are true of
him as a legal representative. It is indeed admitted
that they hold good of him as a legal substitute; but
there is no difference in principle between a substitute
and a representative. In Galatians Paul says: "I
am crucified with Christ." "^ The chief sense in which
these words are to be taken is the representative. He
discusses, in that passage, the doctrine of justification
and not of sanctification. Hence he could not have
onlv meant to say, I deny myself with Christ. It is
true that he who has died federally and representa-
tively with Christ to the guilt of sin will so live with
him as to die more and more to its power, and Paul
asserts that truth; but in the words cited, if regard be
had to the connection in which they are used, primary
Mii. 13. 2^'. 21. ''ii. 20.
16
242 Calvinism and Evangelical Aiminianisni.
reference is made by the apostle to tlie representative
relation. In 2 Corinthians the same apostle says :
"The love of Christ constraineth ns; becanse we thus
judge, that if one died for all, then all died;'" for
that is the true and now the generally admittted ren-
derinof of the words translated, " then were all dead."
How could all die in one except representatively?
Myriads of believers died before, and myriads were
not born until after, Christ died. The great fact is
here affirmed that the death of a representative is
legally and constructively the death of those whom he
represented. Those, therefore, who thus died with
Christ died under the sentence of a condemning law,
that is, died penally, and so cannot justly die again in
that way; and having so died, the legal difficulties
which lay in the path of acceptable obedience to God
are removed, and the motives to a life of holiness are
impressively enforced. Paul says again: "If ye be
risen with Christ." ^ If believers died representatively
with Christ, they rose representatively with him.
There is also a spiritual resurrection, but there was a
federal, as there will be a bodily. And if they died
and rose representatively with him, they were repre-
sentatively justified with him, when God the Father
having raised him from the dead, on the ground of
distributive justice, acquitted him of all imputed guilt,
formally approved his righteousness, and published to
the universe his desert of the reward stipulated by the
covenant — the everlasting life of his seed.
But if Christ was the legal representative of his
seed, so must Adam have been of his. The passage
which settles that is the one in the fifth chapter of
W. 14. '^ Col. iii. I.
Ohjcclion J'ro/n Diinnc Justice. 243
Romans, from the twelfth verse to the end. Tliere
the relation of the disobedience of Adam to the con-
demnation and death of his posterity is declared to
be analogous to that of the obedience of Christ to the
justification and life of his seed. But Christ in ren-
dering obedience to the divine law acted as a legal
representative ; so consequently must Adam in com-
mitting his act of disobedience. It follows, that, if
Adam had stood during his time of trial and been
justified, all his posterity would have been represent-
atively justified in him — that is, they would by the
divine sentence have been adjudged to confirmation
in holiness and happiness. In that case his right-
eousness would have been imputed to his descendants,
just as Christ's righteousness is now imputed to his
people. Natural birth would have designated the
parties upon whom his merit would have terminated,
as now spiritual birth indicates the parties upon
whom the merit of Christ takes effect. But Adam
fell, and his guilt is imputed to his seed. Instead of
attaining justification in him, they fell with him into
condemnation. In these respects the cases of the first
and second Adam are parallel. It is the principle of
strict federal representation which stamps the charac-
ter of each case.
Thirdly, If we are at all warranted, touching this
matter, in appealing to the ordinary course of provi-
dence and the general judgment of men, we must
resort not to the parental, but the representative, rela-
tion. We never judge that a child is, strictly speak-
ingr well-deservincr or ill-deservino- on account of his
parents' acts. If his father has perpetrated a crime,
while we may feel that his child justly suffers in con-
244 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
sequence of it, we do not pronounce him culpable.
As in no sense lie did the act, he is in no sense blame-
worthy. If one have committed murder, shame and
obloquy attach to his child, but who w^ould say that
he was guilty of his father's crime? If he were he
would deserve to be hanged. Such, however, is
neither the judgment nor the custom of mankind.
But if one be the representative, the attorney, the
aeent, of another, the case is different. There is a
legal identity between the two, so that the acts of one
are in law the acts of the other. Such is the general
iudo-ment of men. If there be anv force in these
considerations, they would go to show that Adam's
children are not culpable because as their father he
sinned ; but if he were their legal agent and repre-
sentative they must be regarded as blame-worthy for
his sin. They did the act in him, not consciously and
subjectively, but federally, legally, representatively.
It may be objected to this representation of the
great and critically important doctrine of inherited
sin, that the parental relation is thrown out of account
and treated as if possessed of no significance. To this
it is replied: In the first place, it is admitted that the
parental relation as involving the natural union be-
tween Adam and his descendants grounds the propa-
gation of the race as a species, with all its essential
and inseparable qualities. The question, however, is
a different one whether the transmission of non-essen-
tial and separable qualities can be accounted for in
accordance with this law. What is contended for is
that even if that were conceded, the propagation of
those qualities — that of sin, for example — would de-
mand an antecedent solution in the principle of jus-
Objection from Divine Justice. 245
tice. Why sin should be transmitted from parent to
child, entailing penal consequences, is a question
which cannot be legitimately answered by appealing
to a merely natural constitution. The deformity
w^ould be a misfortune and not a crime. The nat-
uralness of sin would as much destroy its punishable
feature as- that of a misshapen body. The represen-
tative relation must be invoked to account for the
legal character of propagation, even if it be admitted
tliat propagation is the channel of the transmission
of sin. The whole difficulty is avoided by referring the
hereditary character of sin to the great law of federal
representation. In the second place, it is admitted
that the parental relation grounded the propriety ot
the superadded representative relation. It was fit
that he who was appointed the federal trustee and
legal representative of mankind, attended by the im-
measurable responsibilities embraced in that office,
should be their first father, possessed of all the tender
affections which such a relation supposed. And it
was fit that Adam as father should be the representa-
tive, inasmuch as the tie of blood, the bond of race,
supplied the principle upon which he and all his
individual offspring could be collected into legal
unity. The statement of the case which is in this
discussion maintained is precisely this: the parental
grounded the propriety of the representative relation,
and the representative relation grounded the imputa-
tion of guilt.
It may also be objected that the doctrine here af-
firmed is eccentric, for the reason that the term repre-
sintative and its cognates are not found either in the
Scriptures or in the Westminster Standards. This
246 Calvijiisni and Evangelical Arminianism,
objection cannot be offered by those divines of the
Evangelical Arniinian school who themselves employ
the phraseology which is dispnted. If it be presented
by others of that school, the answer is, that there are
terms of articulate importance used by themselves
which are not found in the Scriptures ; for example
the Trinity, Sufficient Grace, Prevenient Grace, and
Universal Atonement. The objection, therefore, as
an argument would prove too much and be conse-
quently invalid. If the objection were urged by one
belonging to the school of Calvinism, the reply would
be : In the first place, there are terms employed by
Calvinists which are not to be found in the Scriptures;
for instance, Satisfaction to divine justice, the Right-
eousness of Christ, the Imputed Righteousness of
Christ, the Vicarious Obedience of Christ, Particular,
or Definite, or Limited Atonement, Effectual Calling
and the Perseverance of the Saints. Are the doc-
trines signified by these terms not to be found in the
Scriptures? If so, Calvinism would be blown to the
winds. In the second place, the fact that the term
representative^ as applied to i\dam, is not found in the
Westminster Standards by no means proves that the
doctrine of his representative character is not con-
tained in them. He is expressly declared to have
been a "public person" in the same sense in which
Christ is said to be a "public person." Says the
Larger Catechism : "The covenant being made with
Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but
for his posterity, all mankind, descending from him
by ordinary generation, sinned in him and fell with
him in that first transgression."^ Speaking of Christ
^ Oues. 22.
Objt'ctioji from Divine Justice. 247
the same formulary says: "All which he did as a
priblic person, tlie head of his church, for their justi-
fication."^ Does tJiis mean that Christ was a repre-
sentative? What Calvinist would deny ? In the same
way it must be admitted that the Westminster divines
held Adam to have been a representative. To this it
must be added that the terms Particular Atonement
and their synonyms are not found in the Westminster
Standards. Is the doctrine not there? And it de-
serves to be remarked that the term representative
was not in common use at the time when the x\ssem-
bly was in session, and hence probably its absence
from the formularies composed by it. But it was
sufficiently used by divines of the period to show that
they regarded Adam as a representative. "The sin
of Adam," observes Dr. John Owen, "was and is im-
puted unto all his posterity . . . And the ground
hereof is, that we stood all in the same covenant with
him who was our head and representative therein."^
"Adam," says Thomas Watson, "being a repre-
sentative person, he standing, we stood ; and he fall-
ing, we fell."^
We come now, at last, to the question. Was the
federal constitution, involving the application of the
principle of legal representation to Adam and his
posterity and implicating them in the judicial conse-
quences of his first sin, inconsistent with the justice
of God?
The questions may be asked. Why, if the doctrines
of election and reprobation have been proved to be
^ Oues. 52,
' Works, Goold's Ed., vol. 5, On JusHfication, p. 169.
' Select Works, Robert Carter and Brothers, p. 98.
248 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
revealed in tlie Scriptures, should the inquiry be
considered in regard to their consistency or inconsis-
tency with the perfections of God? And why, if the
doctrine of federal representation is also delivered to
us by the same sacred authority, should the attempt
be made to show that it is not inconsistent with the
divine justice. Everything that God, in his holy
Word, declares he has done or will do must, of neces-
sity, be consistent with his character; consequently
these reasonings are gratuitous and suited to do more
harm than good. We have the weighty opinion of
Haldane, in his admirable commentary on the Epistle
to the Romans, against this sort of argument in rela-
tion to the subject now in hand. This, it is cheer-
fully admitted, is eminently true and wise, on the
supposition that a doctrine has been proved beyond
reasonable doubt to be revealed in the Scriptures.
The position of the Dogmatic Rationalist of the Wolf-
ian type is utterly untenable, that doctrines conceded
to be part of a supernatural revelation need to be for-
tified by rational demonstration. It is enough that
they are introduced with the indisputable authority
of the preface, "Thus saith the Lord." But it merits
consideration that the real question often is, as it is in
this particular instance, whether the doctrines alleged
to be revealed in the Scriptures are actually so re-
vealed. There being a difference between pious and
reverent men in their interpretation of the passages
adduced as proofs, moral and rational considerations,
drawn from the teachings of Scripture and the funda-
mental laws of belief of the human mind, are thrown
in on one side or the other to strengthen or weaken,
not the divine statements, but the alle^red evidence
Objection from Divine Justice. 249
that the doctrines in question are derived from the
word of inspiration. It is for this reason the present
discussion has been allowed the range which it has
taken; and if relief, however little, shall be given to
any pious mind from doubt as to the divine authority
of the doctrines it defends from attack, it will not be
wholly vain.
(i.) If God established the federal constitution by
which Adam was appointed the legal representative
of the race, it must be regarded as just; for whatever
God does is necessarily just. This principle was af-
firmed by the illustrious patriarch when pleading for
Sodom: ''Shall not the judge of all the earth do
right?" The same great principle is asserted by- Paul
in the third chapter of Romans when replying to
objections against gratuitous justification, and in the
ninth chapter when answering cavils against sover-
eign predestination. But the Scriptures reveal the
fact of the federal constitution as one of divine ap-
pointment. It w^as therefore not inconsistent with
the justice of God.
(2.) It is not difficult to prove that the federal con-
stitution involving the principle of legal representa-
tion was benevolent. The limitations assigned by a
free determination of the divine will to a merely legal
probation, — the limitation of the probation of all to
that of one who was amply and richly furnished to
stand the trial, one who from the nature of the case
wa.s susceptible of responsibilities which in their ful-
ness could attach to no other; the limitation of the
time of obedience which conditioned the easy attain-
ment of immortal holiness and bliss for every individ-
ual of the race; and perhaps the limitation of the field
2^o Calz'inisjn and Evans^elical Armiiiianism
'^
of temptation, — these limitations upon the trial of
mankind, which otherwise under a naked economy of
law would have beeu perpetual for every individual
and shadowed forever by the dread contingency of a
fall, were certainly the products of benevolence.
But such a constitution would uot have been benevo-
lent had it been unjust. Injustice done to the crea-
tures of his power could not have consisted with the
goodness of their Creator. It is not w^arrantable to
affirm that at one and the same time he acted towards
the human race benevolently and inconsistently with
justice. On the other hand, if the representative ar-
rangement had beeu inconsistent with justice it could
not have been consistent with benevolence. Of
necessity the attributes of God must be perfectly har-
monious wuth each other both in their intrinsic nature
and in their actual exercise. If then the federal
economy was benevolent, it could not have been incon-
sistent with justice.
(3.) It may be urged that it was arbitrary and there-
fore was not grounded in justice. To this it is re-
plied, that if it can be showui to have been dictated
by wisdom and benevolence it cannot be proved to
have been arbitrary; for that is arbitrary which is
wanton and is founded upon no sufficient reason. It
cannot be evinced that the federal ordination was the
result of God's naked will proceeding without any
regard to rational considerations. It cannot,- there-
fore, be proved to have been inconsistent with justice
because it wms arbitrary.
(4.) The attempt has been made to convict it of in-
compatibility with justice, because mankind, who, it
is alleged, were represented in Adam and bound by
Objection from Diz'inc Justice. 251
his act, had no voice, no siifTrage, in the adoption of
that measure of government by wliich the principle
of representation \vas applied to their case: it was im-
posed upon them without their choice, and yet their
everlastino- destinies mioht have been decided bv it.
But-
First, It cannot be proved, though this be true, that
the application of the principle of representation to
the race by their divine Maker and Ruler was intrin-
sically unjust. We are incompetent judges of the
whole case. God is infinitely wiser than we. It
would be supremely rash and arrogant in us to under-
take to decide upon what principles he should choose
to conduct his moral government. It is at least sup-
posable that he saw that it would be as fair to men to
deal with them collected into moral unity in the per-
son of a fully qualified representative, as to treat each
individual as responsible only for his own subjective
and conscious agency. It does not matter to sa}' that
when God constituted the first man a representative
of his race he foreknew that he would fall and drag
down his descendants with him into a common ruin;
for had this measure not been adopted, God might
have foreseen that every individual of the race would
fall for himself, and in that case the advantages of the
representative relation would be absent. So that at
last it comes to this: Why did God create man at all
if he foreknew that he would sin ? And to that ques-
tion as the limited human intelligence has never yet
furnished a satisfactory answer, so it is likely that in
the present sphere of thought it never will. It is
enough to know that it is God who has done it. Wliat-
ever he does must be just and wise and right.
252 Cahiiiism and Evangelical Anninianism,
Secondly, God is infinitely benevolent. The appli-
cation to the race of the principle of representation
was therefore consistent with benevolence. It was
applied to man while in innocence. It was no judi-
cial infliction. There was no reason growing- out of
man's relation to God which could have occasioned
harshness or rigor on his Maker's part. If he loved
man at his creation, it is impossible to conceive that
he would have chosen any mode of procedure which
would have prejudiced his interests or borne hardly
upon his destiny. Indeed it is impossible to say, with-
out blasphemy, that God can treat any of his crea-
tures inequitably.
Thirdly, To take the ground that the application to
the race of the representative principle would have
been unjust because they had no suffrage in its adop-
tion, is to maintain that the subjects of God's govern-
ment have a right to take part in its administration.
This is absurdly to press the analogy of human gov-
ernment. The people are not sovereign in the divine
administration. They are in no sense factors in the
government. They do not elect the ruler. If they
did, they would be supposed to elect God, before he
could have the right to rule them. The right of God
to rule is absolute and resides in himself. He creates
the subjects of his government, and is therefore as to
their very persons as well as their interests proprietary
governor. He owns them. He is a pure autocrat.
And a government by a single will must be the very
best government, if that will be perfect — if it be abso-
lutely free from every element of error, injustice and
wrong. The race therefore could, from the nature of
the case, have no right to exercise suffrage with refer-
Objection from Divine Justice. 253
ence to any feature of the divine government, unless
God himself were pleased in infinite condescension to
confer that right. Whether that were possible, will
not now be considered. It certainly was not a fact,
and that consideration is sufficient to determine the
question in hand. The race could have possessed no
right of suffrage, and consequently there could have
been no infringement of their rights by an application
to them of the representative principle.
Fourthly, The same course of reasoning is pertinent
to the objection, that the race had no suffrage in the
selection of the person to represent them — that they
had no voice in the appointment of Adam to that re-
sponsible office. But the following considerations
may be added upon this point:
In the first place, God was better qualified to judge
of the question who should be the representative than
the whole human race could have been, on the sup-
position that by the anticipation of their actual ex-
istence, through the almighty power of God, they had
been assembled in a great mass-meeting at the garden
of Eden. He is infinitely wise and infinitely benev-
olent.
In the second place, it is plain that upon the sup-
position of the application of the representative prin-
ciple, Adam was suited to be the representative. He
was created in the full maturity of his powers both in
body and soul. Had any other man been appointed a
future representative, he must have been appointed to
act either in his childhood or in adult age. If in
childhood, the folly of the appointment would have
been transparent. If in adult age, what guarantee
would have existed that he would not sin before arriv-
254 Calvinism and Evangelical Anjiinianisni.
iiig at maturity? The folly of such an appointment
would have been equally manifest.
Further, Adam was the first man, the parent of the
whole race. Who then could have been so fit as he
to be the trustee of the whole race ? The parental
relation which he sustained to every man grounded
the propriety of his federal and representative rela-
tion to every man. How could any man in the line
of descent have represented those who preceded him?
Unless, indeed, we suppose that election terminated
on man in innocence. But it did not. This last sup-
position is mentioned for the reason that for aught we
know the elect angels were in some sense represented
by Christ. In that case, as their existence would
have ante-dated his incarnation, his merits would have
been reflected back upon their standing; or rather
their standing would have been grounded in his future
obedience. So, we know, it actually was with the
Old Testament saints.
It deserves moreover to be considered, that the re-
sponsibilities which weighed upon the first man, on
the supposition that he was a representative, must of
necessity have been greater than those which could
have been gathered upon any one of his descendants.
To no other man could the whole race have sustained
the relation of posterity. He alone could feel that
all mankind were destined to be his offspring. The
responsibilities of the father of the whole race could
alone rest upon him; a-nd if he could not fitly dis-
charge the functions of a representative under so ac-
cumulated a load of responsibilities, it is certain that
none of his descendants could.
(5.) If the principle of represeutation be discarded
Objection frouL Divine Justice. 255
on tlie alleged ground of its injustice, it follows that
under no circumstances can it be admitted. Unjust
in one instance, it would be unjust in all. The rep-
resentation of sinners by Christ must consequently be
rejected as unjust. And then upon the supposition
of the sin of the whole race of individuals, the re-
motest hope of their salvation would be shut out. For
it is evident that no transgressor of the divine law
could deliver himself from its penalty; and it is
equally clear that no one laboring under the spiritual
disabilities incurred by sin could recover himself from
their influence. But if it would be impossible for the
sinner to extricate himself from the disastrous conse-
quences of his sin, and the principle of representa-
tion, involving substitution, would be inadmissible,
every sinner must lie down hopelessly under the press-
ure of his doom. There are only two suppositions
which could furnish a ray of hope — either that the
sinner might deliver himself, or that he might be de-
livered by a substitute — and both are excluded. The
Pelagian hypothesis is here thrown out of account, as
having not the shadow of support either from the
Scriptures or from the principles of reason. "With-
out shedding of blood is no remission." Atonement
or eternal death: these are the only alternatives to
the transgressors of an infinite law. To this reason-
ing sundry objections may be offered.
First, It may be objected that representation which
God foreknew would issue in a fall into sin, and repre-
sentation intended to recover men from the disastrous
effects of a fall, stand on a different foot in relation to
justice, and to benevolence as well. But it is forgot-
ten by those who urge this objection that man at ere-
2s6 Calvinism and Evans^elical Arminianisni.
ation was endowed with freedom of will and with
amply sufficient strength to refrain from sin and stand
in holiness. The objection might be relevant if the
nature of man as it issued from the creative hand of
God implicated the necessity of a fall. But this is
contrary to fact. If, then, the representative had
maintained his standing, his posterity would have
cheaply won confirmation in holiness and happiness.
These objections also overlook the important con-
sideration that the confirmed holiness and happiness
of the race were suspended upon an obedience of their
representative which was limited as to time. Had he
kept his integrity for the specified period designated
in God's covenant, these priceless blessings w^ouid
have been secured for himself and his posterity.
On the other hand, had there been no super-addi-
tion of a covenant to the naked dispensation of law,
there could, from the nature of the case, have been
no possible justification either for himself or for any
member of his race. The demand of law unmodified
by a covenant arrangement would have been for per-
petual obedience as the condition of continued life.
The requirement would have been. Obey, and as long
as you obey you shall live; disobey, and you shall die.
The period never could have been reached when the
subject could upon a plea of finished obedience have
been entitled to expect the confirmation of his rela-
tions to God. The contingency of a fall would have
gone on parallel with his immortal existence.
It may be contended that while this is true in re-
gard to the necessity of a covenant in order to justifi-
cation, it was not necessary that the feature of repre-
sentation should have been incorporated into the
Objection from Diz'inc Justice. 257
federal constitution. It might have pleased Gcd to
have entered into a separate covenant with each indi-
vidual involving such a limitation upon the time of
obedience as would have rendered possible the justifi-
cation of every man. But whatever may be thought
of the possibility of such an arrangement there are
two things wdiich clearly show that it w^as not a fact,
and therefore it is idle to raise the question. In the
first place, the universality of original sin prov^es that
every member of the race was implicated in the re-
sponsibility of Adam's first sin, and that the com-
plexion of his moral history was derived from it.
There could have been no separate covenant wnth
each individual. In the second place, the Epistle to
the Romans settles the question. It teaches that the
representative character of Adam was analogous to
that of Christ.
It is evident from what has been said that mankind
had in their first progenitor and legal representative a
fair chance of attaining upon easy conditions a con-
firmed life of holiness and bliss which would have
forever placed them beyond the possibility of falling.
Secondly, It may be objected that had the principle
of representation not been adopted, and each individ-
ual of the race had been placed upon his own foot in
relation to the divine law, many might have stood —
more, it may be, than are actually saved through the
atonement of Christ. It is not difficult to show that
this is a wild supposition.
In the first place, the precedent of the fallen angels
is against it. We have reason to believe that the prin-
ciple of representation did not apply in their case.
Each stood on the foot of individual obedience. But
258 Calvinism and Evangelical Anninianism.
all of them fell. If angels, why not men ? And it
merits serious reflection that having fallen they re-
main so. The principle upon which they originally
stood related to God appears to have been retained by
him in application to their case. No federal head
and representative, so far as we know, has been ap-
pointed for them in their fallen and ruined condition.
We know not the whole case, but these facts are sug-
gestive.
In the second place, the precedent of Adam is
against the supposition. With all his measureless
responsibilities thronging upon him, he fell. In all
the maturity of his glorious faculties and endowments,
he fell. What shadow of probability is there that
mere children would have been able to resist the as-
saults of that master of temptation who so promptly
seduced him? For Adam's descendants would not
have been born as he was created. It is more than
probable that had each man been placed on his own
individual footing each one v/ould have fallen.
In the third place, each descendant of Adam would
have had the influence of his evil example exerted
upon him. The principle of imitation is strong, and
would have seconded the temptations of the Devil.
Added to this influence of the first man would have
been that of every succeeding fall into sin, an influ-
ence gathering fresh accretion and augmented strength
as the generations of men multiplied in number.
(6.) It may be objected that while it is consistent
with justice that another's rif^hteousness should be
imputed, it is not consistent with that attribute that
another's guilt should be imputed: justice requires
that only the guilt of one's own conscious sin should
Objection from Divine Justice. 259
be imputed to him. If this be true, it would follow
that the guilt of Adam's first siu could not, consist-
ently with justice, be imputed to his posterity.
We have here the assertion of a general principle
or law — that of the impossibility under a just govern-
ment of the imputation of another's guilt to one
consciously and subjectively innocent. One clear in-
stance to the contrary would destroy this pretended
generalization, by negativing the assumed impossi-
bility. Such an instance, and it is an illustrious one,
w^e have in Christ. It is of course admitted on all
hands that he was subjectively and consciously sinless.
He was holy, harmless, undcfiled and separate from
sinners. It is a fact, however, that he suffered and
suffered unto death, even the accursed death of the
cross. Now there are only three conceivable supposi-
tions in the case: either that he suffered without the
imputation to him of any guilt; or that he suffered in
consequence of the imputation to him of his own
guilt; or that he suffered in consequence of the impu-
tation to him of others' guilt. To say that he suffered
without the imputation to him of any guilt is to im-
peach the justice of the divine government; for if
there be any principle of government which is axiom-
atic it is that no suffering can be justly inflicted
iipon a person entirely innocent. To say that he
suffered in consequence of the imputation to him of
his own guilt is alike to blaspheme, and to subvert
the grounds of human salvation. It remains that he
must have suffered in consequence of the imputation
to him of the guilt of others.
It is admitted by the parties to this controversy that
the sufferings of Christ were penal. As he could not
26o Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism,
have been punished for nothing, or for his own guilt,
it follows necessarily that he was punished for the
guilt of others imputed to him.
This fact so vital to the pardon and salvation of
sinners is explicitly affirmed in the Scriptures. They
declare that human guilt was imputed to Christ.
"And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the
Lord's lot fell, and offer him for a sin-offering: But
the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scape-goat,
shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an
atonement with him, and to let him go as a scape-
goat into the wilderness. And when he hath made
an end of reconciling the holy place, and the taber-
nacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall
brinof the live o^oat: And Aaron shall lav both his
hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over
him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and
all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them
upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away
by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness. And
the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto
a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in
the wilderness." " My sins [guiltiness: marg.] are not
hid from thee." "He was wounded for our trans-
gressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chas-
tisement of our peace was upon him; and with his
stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone
astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and
the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew
no sin." "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse
of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is writ-
ten, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.'-
Objection from Divine Justice. 261
" So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many."
"Who his ownself bare our sins in his own body on
the tree."
But let it be conceded that the Scriptures teacli the
imputation of his people's guilt to Christ, and it will
be urged that he consented to this imputation, whereas
the descendants of Adam did not consent to -the im-
putation of his guilt to them. The presence of con-
sent in the one case, and its absence in the other,
makes them so different as to destroy the analogy be-
tween them. To this it may be replied :
First, If it be a principle of all moral government,
including the divine, that guilt cannot be imputed
where there has been no conscious sin, it would be
unsupposable that the infinitely just God, represent-
ing the Trinity, could have infringed that principle
by imputing guilt to his sinless Son. It is inconceiv-
able that either the Father or the Son could have
consented to a measure involving the sacrifice of a
principle affirmed to be fundamental to a righteous
government. That consent to so transcendently won-
derful and awful a procedure as the imputation of the
guilt of others to the Son of God, viewed as incar-
nate, can only be conceived by us as possible on the
ground that it was consistent with the divine perfec-
tions, and was justified by the infinitely glorious ends
which were designed to be secured.
Secondly, It is hard to avoid the impression that
those who urge the view under consideration, con-
found two things which are entirely distinct. It is
one thing to impute the guilt of conscious sin, when
no conscious sin has been committed, and quite an-
other thing to impute the guilt of another's conscious
262 Calvinism and Evano^elical Arniinianisni.
a
sin. Ill the former case the principle of justice would
be flagrantly violated, for the imputation would not
be in accordance with fact. It would be untrue and
therefore unjust. But the same difficulty does not
exist in the latter case. To impute to one the guilt
of another's conscious sin does not necessarily involve
an inconsistency with fact, and therefore does not
necessarily conflict with truth. Wiiile then it would
have been impossible for God the Father to impute to
his incarnate Son the guilt of conscious, subjective
sin, seeing he was holy, harmless, undefiled and sepa-
rate from sinners, and equally impossible for God to
impute the guilt of conscious, subjective sin to Adam's
descendants for implication in his fall, seeing that
when he fell they were not in conscious existence, it
is neither impossible nor incredible that God the
Father should have determined to introduce into his
moral government a principle of representation in ac-
cordance with which, in order to the divine glory and
the salvation of sinners, he called his Son to assume
the guilt of fallen man, nor is it impossible or in-
credible that in dealing with the human race God,
proceeding upon the same principle in appointing
Adam as their federal head, should have ordained the
imputation to them of his righteousness if he stood,
and of his guilt if he fell. In either case, that of
Christ or the posterity of Adam, the imputation is not
of conscious and subjective, but of constructive, legal,
representative guilt.
Thirdly, The distinction must not be overlooked
between the consent of one to be the representative
of others and the consent of constituents to be repre-
sented. The former was the case of Christ. His free
Obiection from Divine Justice. 263
consent to the appointment of the Father by which
he became the representative of sinners, involving
the imputation of their guilt to him, is supposed in
the formation of the covenant of redemption. The
same thing holds good in part of the case of Adam.
He was by a free act of God's will appointed the rep-
resentative of his posterity. It is true that this ap-
pointment could not have been declined by Adam,
but it is also true that as he was graciously admitted
to be a party to a covenant with God, his free and
spontaneous consent to the. divine ordination was sup-
posed. If then it be granted that the cordial consent
of a representative to the constitution under which
he is appointed is supposed, it will not follow that the
free, conscious consent of the constituents is to be
equally supposed. Such was not the fact in regard to
Christ's constituents. They did not, could not, con-
sent in the first instance to his appointment as their
representative. The same is true of Adam's constit-
uents, who, in the first instance, did not and could
not consciously consent to his appointment as their
representative. The analogy then might be regarded
as in some degree holding between Christ as consent-
ing to be a representative and Adam as consenting to
sustain a similar relation ; but for aught that appears
it would not obtain between Christ as a representative
and Adam's constituents as represented.
Fourthly, Another distinction merits notice, to
wit, between the derivation of responsibility upwards
from constituents to a federal head and representa-
tive, on the one hand, and, on the other, the deriva-
tion of responsibility downwards from a federal head
and representative to constituents. The cases are not
264 Calvinism and Evangelical Arnii7iianism.
perfectly analogous. It may, therefore, not be legiti-
mate to say that because the Son of God consented to
the imputation of the guilt of his constituents to him,
it was requisite that Adam's constituents should have
consented to the imputation of his guilt to them.
If consent were necessary in the one case, it would
not, in consequence of that fact, be proved that it
was necessary in the other.
It deserves consideration that, on the supposition
of the appointment of the Son of God as the federal
head and representative of a sinful constituency, it
was in the nature of things necessary for him to as-
sume their guilt, and for God the Father judicially
to impute it to him. Their guilt was not contem-
plated in the counsels of the Godhead as in any
sense contingent, but. as a fact; that is to say, it was
not in any sense contingent whether they would be
guilty or not. They were viewed as fallen. But the
case was, in some degree, different in regard to the
relation between Adam and his posterity. There
was, antecedently to his fall, no intrinsic necessity
that his guilt should be imputed to them, because
there was no such necessity that he should sin and
contract guilt. He might have stood, and then his
righteousness would have been imputed to them; on
which supposition, their consent, according to the
admission of the objectors, would not have been
necessary. For it is conceded that a vicarious right-
eousness may be imputed, at least is imputable,
without the previous consent of those upon whom
such imputation is designed to take effect.
It will be said in reply that, granted there was no
intrinsic necessity that Adam should fall and that his
Objection fro7n Divine Jtistice. 265
guilt should be imputed, yet God foreknew that such
would be the actual result of a covenant with him;
consequent!}', the difficulty is not removed. I rejoin,
that had no federal and representative arrangement
been adopted, and all men had been dealt with
severally, each on his own foot, God might have
foreknov/n that like the fallen angels all would have
lapsed from holiness. Will it be demanded that be-
fore such an arrangement could have been justified
the consent to it of every human being should have
been secured? Who would take that ground? Why,
then, might not the federal constitution have been
adopted, without the consent of mankind, even
though it was divinely foreseen that it would actually
issue in the Fall? Looking at the matter from the
low view of consequences, we must admit that no
more injury has accrued from the application of the
representative principle without the consent of man-
kind, than would have resulted if it had not been in-
troduced and men without their consent had been
treated as individually responsible.
It must also be again observed that had not the
representative economy been adopted, and each mem-
ber of the race had fallen through his own conscious
sin, the ruin of all would have been irretrievable.
For it is certain that no fallen human beincr could
have saved himself. And if it be said that at least
the justice of God in punishing every man only for
his own conscious sin would have been apparent, it
is easy to answer that the exercise of mercy in saving
men would also have been debarred. Whether it
would have been better that justice should be mani-
fested in damning all, or mercy in saving some, it
may be left to the objectors themselves to determine.
266 Calvinism and Evang^elical Armiiiianism.
ib
Fifthly, There is still another distinction which
must be emphasized. It is that which exists between
the infinite Son of God, as in essence identical and in
power and glory equal with the eternal Father, on the
one hand, and the finite, human subjects of the divine
government, on the other. Antecedently to his own
free act, by which he subordinated himself as Medi-
ator to the will of his Father, the Sou of God was not
a subject of law ; he was no creature, bound by the
very conditions of the creaturely relation to comply
with the requirements of the divine government. He
was, with the Father, the source and administrator of
the divine rule. Hence it is obvious that, in order to
his becoming the representative and sponsor of sinful
beings (amazing fact !) with the end in view of secur-
ing their pardon and salvation, his own free consent
to such a procedure should exist. Without it, it is
not conceivable that the mysterious economy by which
he became the suffering and dying vicar, the priestly
substitute, of sinners should have been carried into
execution. He must have voluntarily consented to
assume the guilt of sinners, and to be regarded and
treated as putatively guilty, in order to the judicial
imputation of guilt to him by God the Father as the
representative of the Godhead in the solemn transac-
tion. This has been clearly enough shown by such
writers as Dr. John Owen, Bishop Horsley, Robert
Hall and James Thornwell. But it would be extrav-
agant to use the case of the Son of God as an ana-
logue to that of mere creatures of the divine power
and subjects of the divine law. What is and must be
true of him is by no means necessarily predicable of
them. If his consent to the employment of the rep-
Objection from Divine Justice. 267
resentative principle, in sncli an application to him as
to involve the impntation of the guilt of others to
him, was indispensable, it does not follow that the
application of the same principle of government to
mere creatures and subjects, resulting in their impli-
cation in another's guilt, must have been conditioned
only upon their free, conscious concurrence. It
would amount to this: that it would have been im-
possible, because unjust, for God ever to have in-
troduced the representative feature into his moral
government, so far as the appointment of a creature
as representative is concerned. The reason is plain.
The appointment of such a representative, being
necessarily founded in the eternal purpose of God,
must from the nature of the case be prospective in its
character— must anticipate the conscious existence
of those for whom the representative is intended to
act, and must therefore, if made at all, be made
without their conscious consent. Will those who
urge the objection under consideration maintain the
view, that the infinite God was estopped from em-
ploying the principle of representation in the moral
government of his creatures?
This objection, the gravity of which is not denied,
has thus been subjected to a fair examination, and
the reasons advanced against its relevancy, it may
without arrogance be claimed, are at least sufficient
to show, that the difficulties which it creates are
more formidable than those inhering in the doctrine
against which it is directed.
^7.) In an issue between the plain statements of
Scripture and an alleged fundamental intuition, the
proof of the reality of that intuition and of tlie legiti-
268 Calvinism and Evano-elical Arniinianism.
<b
macy of its application to the case in hand mnst be
such as to place it beyond suspicion. It must not be
doubtful. It is admitted that our fundamental laws
of belief and our fundamental principles of rectitude
are standards to which, in some measure, the claims
of a professed revelation from God are to be brought
and by which they are to be tested. In some meas-
ure, I say, for they are far from being the only
standards of adjudication. They enter as only one
element into the criteria of judgment. But it must
not be a spurious or even a doubtful law, which is
thus erected into a standard by which an alleged
supernatural revelation is to be tried. Let now this
rule be applied to the supposed intuition of justice,
which is appealed to in opposition to the doctrine of
federal representation as delivered in the Scriptures.
The foregoing argument, even if it be regarded as
defective in conclusiveness, at least avails to show,
that the alleged intuition of justice, in its application
as a standard of judgment to that doctrine of federal
representation as employed in the history of our race,
is not beyond impeaclnnent. It is itself on trial and
therefore fails to be an unequivocal standard. It cer-
tainly is not sufficiently clear to ground the rejection
of the Scriptures as the professed testimony of God.
Let us now briefly review the argument. The Cal-
vinist maintains that God was just in decreeing to
reprobate those who, by their own unnecessitated sin,
had brought themselves into a condition of guilt and
condemnation. To this it is objected, that they are
born in a state of sin and spiritual inability. As thev
are born sinners, it cannot be shown that they are
punishable for their sin. It is conoenital and consti-
Objection from Diz'inc Justice. 269
tutional. As they are born disabled b}- sin from
obeyintr God's requirements, either legal or evangel-
ical, they are not punishable for disobedience, inas-
much as ability conditions obligation. As this diffi-
culty presses equally upon the Arminian and the Cal-
vinist, each meets it in his own way. The Arminian
contends that men are accountable for original, or
birth, sin, because they were seminally contained in
Adam as their first father, who differed from other
fathers only in this, that he sustained a public rela-
tion to the whole race, which was possible to no other
parent; and because this relation of parental head-
ship, foreseen as issuing in sin and a fall, was modi-
fied by a purpose of redemption which was co-ordi-
nated with it. Further by virtue of an universal I
atonement, the guilt of Adam's sin is not imputed, '
and by grace inability is removed. In this way the
Arminian endeavors to vindicate the divine justice,
in connection with a constitution which involved the
race in congenital sin and inability. I have endeav-
ored to show that this mode of meeting^ the gricrantic
difficulty, is insufficient and unsatisfactory, whether
tested by Scripture or reason.
The Calvinist meets the difficulty by showing, that
upon the relation of parental headship sustained by
Adam to his race, the grace of God superinduced that
of federal and legal representation. The race had
their first probation in him. They were legally and
representatively one with him, so that his act of sin
was, considered not consciously and subjectively, but;
legally and representatively, their sin, and /;/ that\
seiise^ their sin really, actually, personally, individ-
ually. In him they sinned. Consequently the guilt
270
Calvinism and Evangelical Arnjiinianism.
of that sin was justly imputable to them as their own
guilt. It was another's guilt, inasmuch as they did
not contract it consciously an-d subjectively. In this
sense, it was the guilt of another's sin — peccatiun alie-
nnni, and became theirs by imputation only, just as,
in this sense, the merit of Christ's righteousness is
the merit of another'' s righteousness— /V/j-Z/Z/^^ aliena^
and becomes his people's only by imputation. But
as they did contract Adam's guilt by acting legally
and representatively in him, in that sense, the guilt
was self-contracted, and the great maxim, "The soul
that sinneth, it shall die," is not infringed. That
Adam's descendants should be born, if born at all,
in sin and spiritual inability, so far from being de-
barred, is required, by justice. In him they con-
tracted guilt, and by their act despoiled themselves of
that spiritual ability which was their concreated en-
dowment. The fact, and the justice, of the federal
constitution, involving the application of the prin-
ciple of legal representation to the race in Adam,
having been proved, the conclusion follows, that as
mankind brought themselves into a condition of con-
demnation by their own fault, God is just in contin-
uing upon some of them that doom which they had
justly contracted.
I have dwelt at some length upon these views, be-
cause I am compelled to regard the great principle of
Federal Representation, through which the sovereign
grace of God dealt at first with man and deals with
. him now, as one of the key-principles of the Calvin-
1 istic system. If that principle be torn out of it, the
system is disintegrated. Believing that it is im-
pressed upon the whole Word of God, and illustrated
Objection from Divine Justice. 271
in part by every scheme of free, representative gov-
ernment among men, I feel satisfied that its import-
ance cannot be exaggerated.
It will be asked. What is the bearing of the Calvin-
istic doctrine, tonching the decree of election and re-
probation, npon the case of infants dying in infancy?
I reluctantly answer the question, because it has so
often been made a theme for furious declamation
rather than for sober inquiry. To those who are
willing to argue and not to denounce, we are ready to
give an answer. There have been very few Calvin-
ists who have taken the ground that any infants
dying in infancy are excluded from salvation, so few
as to exercise no influence upon the Calvinistic
system. The great majority are divided into two
classes: those who afHrm the salvation of all infants
dying in infancy — and at the present day this is
probably the more numerous class ; and those who
affirm the certain salvation of all infants dying in
infancy, who are children of believing parents, and
content themselves with maintaining, in reference to
other infants dying in infancy, the strong probability
of their salvation. The former class, consequently,
affirm the election to salvation of all infants dying in
infancy, the reprobation of none ; the latter class
affirm the certain election of all infants dying in in-
fancy, who are children of believing parents, and
maintain the probable election of others dying in in-
fancy. No class affirm the certain or probable repro-
bation of any infants dying in infancy. The ques-
tion, therefore, of the justice of their reprobation is
groundless, since neither the certainty nor the proba-
bility of their reprobation is asserted by any class of
Calvinists.
272 Calvinism and Evangelical Ar}ninia7iisni.
But does not the Westminster Confession say that
only elect infants are saved? No, it does not. The
qualifying term only is not used. These are the
words: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regener-
ated and saved by Christ through the Spirit who
worketh when and where and how he pleaseth. So
also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of
being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."
The framers of the Confession evidently meant to
imply that, as no human beings can be saved except
in consequence of election, no infants, dying in in-
fancy, can be saved, except in consequence of elec-
tion. If all infants dying in infancy be saved, then
they are all elect, and to this no Evangelical Arminian
can consistently object, since he holds that all who are
saved are elect. But the question whether all infants,
dying in infancy, are elect, and therefore are saved, is
one which the Confession did not undertake to de-
cide. As it is not a matter concerning which the
Scriptures speak definitely, it was wisely left where
they put it.
If the ground be taken that justice requires the
salvation of all infants dying in infancy, Calvinists
unanimously deny. For the salvation of no sinner
can be required by justice, and infants are sinners.
If it be maintained, that all infants, dying in infancy,
are saved through the mercy of God, applying to them
the justifying blood of Christ and communicating the
regenerating grace of the Spirit, speaking for myself,
I do not deny. I think it probable and hope it may
be so. But I am not prepared to go further, and dog-
matically affirm what the Scriptures do not clearly
reveal. The W^ord of God, and not human sentiment,
Objtxtiou from Divine Justice, 273
is our rule of faith. When that speaks, let us speak;
when it is silent, let us hold our peace.
It may be objected to tlie foregoing views, that the
chief weio'ht of the divine condemnation of sinners is
represented as imposed upon them in consequence of
their fall in Adam, and their possession of the princi-
ple of original sin; whereas the indictments of Scrip-
ture are mainlv directed ao^ainst actual transsrressions.
It is conceded that God's rebukes, expostulations and
warnings have reference principally to the actual dis-
positions and transgressions of the wicked, but it
cannot be overlooked that these actual wickednesses
have their root in the principle of sin which is con-
genital with men. They develop and express it.
We are, therefore, compelled, in the last analysis, to
refer the ground of blameworthiness and condemna-
tion to original sin. If that were not blameworthy
and condemnable, but were a part of man's original
constitution for the existence of which he is not ac-
countable, it would be vain to seek in actual disposi-
tions and sins, expressing a nature which he had no
hand in producing but sim])ly received, a legitimate
ground of reprobation. INIen consciously and sponta-
neously commit actual sins, and the divine condem-
nation of those sins is enforced by the decisions of
conscience, but the root is the innate deprivation of
original righteousness, and the innate principle of un-
godliness; and this condition of the race at birth can-
not be adjusted to our conceptions of justice, except
upon the supposition of ante-natal guilt. This sup-
position the Scriptures confirm. The ultimate solu-
tian of the question urged by the intuition of justice
is, therefore, to be found in the legal representation
18
274 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
of the race by their primitive progenitor uncier the
covenant of works. The case is not helped by the
Arniinian hypothesis of a gracious restoration of
ability to the whole race. For either that supposed
restoration of ability implies the regeneration of the
whole race, or it does not. If it do, the supposition
is exploded by facts: the whole race are not regener-
ated. If it do not, the ability imparted is not suffi-
cient to overcome the principle of original sin, and
the difficulty returns in all its force. Back to Eden —
back to Eden, w^e must inevitably go.
If any one should still object to the decrees of
election and reprobation as unjust, we return to him
the answer of the inspired apostle: ''Who art thou,
O man, that repliest against God?" Has not God the
right to deal with sinners as he pleases? Has he not
the right to glorify his grace in the salvation of some
out of the ill-deserving mass, and to glorify his justice
in the destruction of others.'* Who is this potsherd of
earth that quarrels with infinite sovereignty and jus-
tice? Let Him quarrel with those who are like him
— the potsherds of earth.
2. OBJECTION FROM DIVINE GOODNESS.
The next objection to the Calvinistic doctrines of
election and reprobation, wdiich will be considered, is
derived from the divine zoodness. It is ur^ed that
God's love is extended to every man,' that his tendei
mercies are over all his works ; that it would be an
impeachment of his goodness lo say, that he elected
some of mankind to be saved and ordained others to
^ Watson, 77^<?^. Inst. Vol. ii., p. 341.
Objectioii JroDi Divi>ie Goodness, 275
perish; that, knowiiif^ his efficacious grace to be
necessary to the salvation of any, he decreed to im-
part it to some, and to withhold it fro:u others no
worse than tliey.
Some Calvinistic writers, in answering this objec-
tion, resort to the distinction between God's love of
benevolence and his love of complacency. They
admit, what the Scriptures plainly teach, that God
exercises a love of benevolence towards all men,
whatever their moral character may be. The com-
mon gifts of his providence, which are conferred
without distinction upon the righteous and the
wicked, are sufficient to evince this fact. "But I say
unto you," is the inculcation of Christ in his Sermon
on the Mount, "Love your enemies, bless them that
hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
you and persecute you; that ye may be the children
of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his
sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth
rain on the just and on the unjust."^ But this unde-
niable love of benevolence which God exercises
towards all men is not to be confounded with the love
of complacency with which he regards his elect
people — a peculiar love which is indicated in such
passages as this: "The Lord hath appeared of old
unto me, saying, yea, I have loved thee with an ever-
lasting love; therefore with loving kindness have I
drawn thee."^ Did God, it is argued, love all man-
kind with the h)ve of complacency, his refusal to save
all would present a difficult}- which could not be ex-
plained. But the fact that he regards some with the
mere love of benevolence is attended with no such
^ Matt. V. 44, 45. "-^ Jer. xxxi. 3.
276 Calvinism and Evangelical Arntinianisui.
difficulty. The infliction of the punishments, re-
quired by justice, upon the objects on whom the
love of benevolence terminates is a fact abundantly
asserted in Scripture and constantly illustrated by
experience and observation. The conclusion is that
the decree of reprobation is not inconsistent with the
love of God to men, or, what is the same thing, with
the divine goodness.
I confess my inability to avail myself of this Scrip-
tural distinction, and of the argument based upon it
answering the objection under consideration. The
human race having been conceived in the eternal
mind — so we must phrase it in our human dialect —
as fallen by their own fault into sin, justice demanded
the punishment of the whole race. It could require
no less. On the other hand, mercy, which is but the
benevolence of God contemplating the case of the ill-
deserving and miserable, sought the salvation of the
race; and being an infinite attribute, sought, we may
well suppose, the salvation of the whole race. Exist-
ing together in the divine being, these infinite attri-
butes, though differing in their intrinsic nature, are
perfectly harmonious. But we are obliged to conceive
that the exercise of one may check the exercise of the
other. Did mercy not check the exercise of justice,
the whole human race would be in the case of the
fallen angels. None would be saved. Did justice
not check the exercise of mercy, the whole human
race would be saved. None would be lost. So prob-
ably was it in the divine settlement of the question as
to the salvation of a guilty world. It pleased God in
the exercise of his sovereign will, so far to yield to
the plea of mercy as to determine, npon the ground
Objection from Divine Goodness. 277
of a competent mediation and substitution, to save
some of the fallen race, and so far to accede to the
claim of justice as to determine to leave others in its
hands. But, in contemplating the sinful mass, God
could have perceived in none of them any relations
or qualities suited to elicit the love of complacency.
The Westminster standards say that "out of his mere
love" he determined to save some; but from the na-
ture of the case that love could not have been at first
the love of complacency. It must have been the love
of benevolence. Having, by an act of sovereign will,
decreed to elect some of the race to sah-ation, and hav-
ing, consequently, appointed for them a Redeemer, he
loved them with the peculiar love of complacency.
The love of complacency was not the motive, but the
fruit, of the electing decree. This, I take it, was the
doctrine of those theologians, De Moor for instance,
who held that Christ was not "the foundation of
election."
If these views be correct, it will be seen, that in
considering the relation of the decrees of election and
reprobation to the goodness of God, the question is ^
simply in regard to the love of benevolence. Is it to
represent God as having acted inconsistently with his
love of benevolence to the whole human race, to say,
that, conceiving them as being all in precisely the
same condition, he decreed to save some and to im-
part to them efficacious grace to that end, and to pun-
ish others, and therefore to withhold such grace from
them? This being regarded as the state of the ques-
tion, the negative will now be maintained. But it
must be noticed that the Calvinist is not bound to
show that the decree to reprobate the wicked was the
278 Calvinism and Evangelical Aniiinianism.
product of benevolence. It is enough to prove that
it is not inconsistent with benevolence. It is not the
Calvinist, it is the ]\Ioral Influence School, that is re-
sponsible for the wonderful discovery that all suffering
is the fruit of love. It is not the Calvinist who gal-
lantly contends that it is love which breaks the crim-
inal's neck on earth and sends him to further punish-
ment in hell. He refers penal suffering not to love
but justice, and all that is incumbent on him, in con-
nection with this matter, is to show that the measures
of justice are not inconsistent with the requirements
of benevolence.
(i.) In the foregoing remarks, besides the adduc-
tion of evidence that the Calvinistic doctrines under
treatment are set forth in Scripture, the attempt was
made to show that they are not only not inconsistent,
but positively consistent, with the divine justice, in
answer to the objection that they cannot be recon-
ciled with that attribute. If that argument was con-
clusive, it must exert a controlling influence upon
the present question. It has been already observed
that the acting of one divine attribute may clieck and
modify that of another. In such a case, the divine
wisdom decides to what extent the exercise of one
should limit that of another. But supposing that one
attribute has been actually exercised, it is impossible
to conceive that such an exercise can be inconsistent
with the nature of any other attribute. The forth-
putting of the divine energies must be self-consistent,
and consistent with every divine perfection. If, tlien,
the reprobation of a part of the sinful race of man was
just, it could not have been inconsistent with the di-
vine goodness. Otherwise one attribute would liave
Objection from Divine Goodness. 279
been exercised at the expense of another, and there
would be a clash between the infinite perfections of
God ; and that is an impossible supposition.
For aught we know, the divine goodness may have
suggested the salvation of the fallen angels, of some,
or of all, of them. But on the supposition that such
was the case, the determination to hold them under
punishment, and the actual execution of that purpose,
were certainly consistent with, the goodness of God.
But whether goodness suggested or not their salvation,
it is a fact that their reprobation was decreed, and has
been carried into execution. Was this procedure in-
consistent W'ith the divine goodness? Would any
one who reverences God take that ground? But if
not, why should the reprobation of human beings,
who by their own fault fell into sin, be deemed in-
consistent with goodness? If the reprobation of all
the fallen angels was consistent with goodness, why
not the reprobation o{ some fallen men?
It may be said that these two classes of beings were
so differently circumstanced that to argue from the
case of the one to that of the other is illegitimate.
But all that it is necessary to show, in order to bring
the two cases within the scope of this argument, is
that both classes of beings fell by their own fault,
and that, therefore, their punishment was just. This
the Arminian, at least, cannot deny ; and the asser-
tion of other Anti-Calvinists to the contrary has been
met and disproved by the preceding argument.
It may be urged that it is possible that goodness
did not effect the salvation of the fallen angels, be-
cause it could not, consistently with justice; but that
as it is a fact that goodness did propose, consistently
28o Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
with justice, the salvation of some human beings, it
could not refrain from conferring tlie same boon upon
all. For the Calvinist admits that the satisfaction
rendered by Christ to justice furnished a sufficient
basis for the salvation of all men without the com-
promise of that attribute. To this it may be replied:
first, what goodness could or could not have effected
consistently with justice in regard to the salvation of
the fallen angels, we have no means of determining.
We argue about the matter from ignorance. Our
premises must be hypotheses, and the whole argu-
ment hypothetical. It is consequently nothing
worth. Secondly, it is admitted that God's good-
ness, for aught we know, might, consistently with
justice, have accomplished the salvation of all men.
But if his determination not to save all men was
consistent with justice, as has been shown, then that
determination was not inconsistent with goodness.
Here the Arminian will object that there w^as no
divine determination not to save all men, but that
the divine goodness contemplated the salvation of all.
Let us see. Either he must hold that God's good-
ness could have effected the salvation of all men, or
that it could not. If he hold that it could, as he
admits that all men are not saved, he must also admit
that God did not save all men although he could
have done it. And then the difficulty of reconciling
the destruction of some with the divine goodness
bears upon him equally with the Calvinist. If he
hold that the divine goodness could not effect the
(salvation of all men, he is confronted by these diffi-
culties:— the difficulty that the will of man effects
what the goodness of God could not; for, if the
Objection from Divine Goodness. 281
divine ooodness could not effect the salvation of all
men, for the same reason, whatever it may be, it
could not effect the salvation of any. But some are
saved. It follows that they accomplish for them-
selves what God's goodness could not do for them !
Another difficulty is, that God permitted man to fall
into sin with the foreknowledge that his goodness
could not effect his salvation, and that some men
would not will to save themselves, but Vv'ould finally
perish. How could the permission of the Fall be
reconciled with the divine goodness by the Arminian?
He might, it is conceivable, attempt to reconcile it
with justice on the ground of the foreknowledge that
the salvability of all men would be secured, and
salvation would be offered to all. But he could not,
on his principles, harmonize it with goodness.
Another difficulty is, that those who, conscious
through the force of sin of their inability to accept
the offered salvation, pray to God to enable them to
do it, would pray uselessly and hopelessly, for if the
prayer were answered and God would grant the de-
sired help, that would contradict the supposition
that God's goodness cannot save men. And so as
neither God could save them, nor they save them-
selves, they are necessarily lost. And this God must
liave foreknown. What becomes of the Arminian con-
ception of the divine goodness? But enougli in re-
gard to this fatal dilemma, though it might be pressed
further. If the Arminian contend that God can save
men and will not save some, tlicn as to the difficulty
sufTfrested bv oroodness he is in the same boat with
the Calvinist. If he contend that God cannot save
men, he is plunged into a wilderness of absurdities
and self-contradictions.
2S2 Calvinism and EvaJigclical Arniinianisni.
(2.) The finiteness of our being, and the consequent
limitation of our faculties, the fact that w^ are sinful
worms of the dust born yesterday and crushed before
the moth, should lead us to be modest and cautious
in pronouncing upon the question, what is required
by the infinite perfections of God and the boundless
interests of the universe. Occupying, as we do, so
small a place in that vast scheme of moral govern-
ment wliich embraces in its scope all orders of being,
in the whole immortality of their development, what
can we know of tlie exigencies of such a system, ex-
cept as the all-wise and almighty Ruler shall vouch-
safe to inform us in the communications of his will ?
Now, we know, because he has ascertained us of the
fact, that the angels who kept not their first estate but
revolted against his government have not been saved
from the retributive consequences of their fall. The
case is profoundly mysterious to us, in view of the fact
that redemption has been provided for fallen human
beings. But mysterious as it is, it is a revealed fact.
What man is there, then, professing reverence for the
Supreme Ruler of the universe, who will venture to
sit in judgment on the case, and affirm that the meas-
ure which consio-ned the whole fallen race of aneels
to hell was inconsistent with the divine q-oodness ?
Will he not cover his niputh with his hand, lay his
mouth in the dust before the Majesty on high, and
humbly confess that in this awful procedure he acted
alike in consistency with his justice and his goodness?
What other course could such a man take ? How
could he pronounce an adverse judgment ? What
grounds could exist for it ? Has he the consciousness
of God that he can determine what his infinite perfec-
I
Objection from Divine Goodness. 283
tions demand — his infinite justice which will not com-
pound with the violators of his law, his infinite holi-
ness which will not tolerate the least degree of sin,
but, blazin;^ with insufferable bri^fhtness before cheru-
bim and seraphim, abashes them into prostrate ador-
ation ? Has he the omniscience of God, that he can
grasp the far-reaching and all-comprehending princi-
ples of his moral government, and say how they
should or should not be applied ? Has he the love of
God for all the creatures of his hand and the subjects
of his illimitable sway, that he can judge what nreas-
ures are necessary or suitable to promote their inter-
ests ? No; all the pious, while they adore the justice;
of God in the reprobation of guilty angels, confess
also the consistencv of that awful fact with the orood-
ness of God.
The same considerations should lead us to refrain
from questioning the goodness of God in reprobating
guilty men. We are ignorant of the case as a whole,
and our attitude should be one of adoring submission.
What essential difference is there between the case of
fallen angels and that of fallen men? There is none,
if it be a fact that both classes of beings fell by their
own fault. A provision made for the salvation of
some of the fallen race of men and effectually applied
to that end, while others are left in the hands of
justice, cannot constitute such a difference. Had not
God the right to show his mercy towards some, and
to continue the operation of his justice upon others?
And if it be a fact that he has done this, why should
liis reprobation of some guilty men be deemed more
inconsistent with goodness than his reprobation of all
guilty angels?
284 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
It may be said that there is a difference between
the two cases, created by the different modes in which
the two classes of beings came to sin ; for each angel,
being on his own foot, fell by his own conscious sin,
whereas men are held accountable for the sin of a
federal head. But, in the first place, we know too
little of the trenesis of ano-elic sin to dos^matize about
it. In the second place, we do know that both angels
and men were probationers, that they were endowed
with sufficient ability to obey the divine law, and
that their disobedience and fall were inexcusable and
condemnable. And in the third place, this exception
to the community between the two cases is incompe-
tent to the Arminian, who admits the accountability
of the human race for the sin of their head.
It will be also said, that all men might have been
saved consistently with justice, since perfect satisfac-
tion was rendered by Christ to justice. As justice
opposed no obstacle to the salvation of all, why did
not goodness effect it? How can the refusal to ac-
complish it, under such conditions, be reconciled to
goodness? Again we are obliged, if reverent and
sober, to remember our ignorance. How can we be
perfectly sure that the perfections of God and the
interests of his moral government did not require,
notwithstanding the discharge of some of the original
transgressors of law through a commutation of parties
and the substitution of Christ in their place, that
some of them should be left under the operation of
justice? How can we determine that this was not as
well a beneficent as a righteous measure to deter, by
so fearful an example, other subjects of the divine
government from yielding to the temotation to revolt
Objection from Divine Goodnc
2o
O -
in the hope of experiencing easy pardon through
vicarious interposition? I venture not to assert that
these things are so, but if they are possible, that con-
sideration's sufficient to prevent our filing an objec-
tion to God's reprobation of some human sinners,
because zve judge that if his goodness saves some of
mankind consistently with justice, it ought to save all.
It deserves to be noticed, that in the case of the
fallen angels we behold the severity of God untem-
pered by'' goodness to them, but in that of men we
behold ills goodness and severity; to them who are
saved goodness, but to them who are lost severity.
There ts, also, in the angelic case, the direct exercise
of justice consistently with goodness, and in the hu-
man case, the direct exercise of goodness consistently
with justice. In the former, all are punished by jus-
tice, goodness concurring; in the latter only some are
punished by justice, goodness concurring, while some
are postive'ly saved by goodness, justice concurring.
Manifestly, while there is equal justice in both cases,
there is more of goodness in the human; and were we
foreigners to the human race as we are to the angelic,
and "looked upon both cases as we look upon that of
the fallen angels, such, no doubt, would be our im-
partial judgment. _ ^ _
(3.) The Arminian, who objects to the Calvinistic
doctrines of election and reprobation on the ground
of their inconsistency with divine goodness, should
reflect that his own doctrine needs to be defended
against the same objection. His doctrine is that God
provided redemption for the whole human race, that
Christ as its substitute offered atonement for every in-
dividual member of it, and that the effect of this re-
286 Calvinism and Evangelical Anninianisni.
deeming- provision operating- through an universal
atonement has been to secure, not the certain salva-
tion of any man, but the possible salvation — the sal-
vability — of every man. It is not now intended to
discuss the correctness of this doctrine, but to raise
the question, whether it can be shown to be consist-
ent with divine goodness; whether it be free from the
charge of inconsistency with that attribute which its
advocates press upon the Calvinistic doctrine.
First, it has already been evinced that Arminian
theologians admit, that the constitution by which the
race was held accountable for the sin of iVdam, con-
sidered in itself, apart from a purpose of redemption
which accompanied it, would have been unjust. It
does not require formal argument to prove that they
are under the necessity of also admitting that for sim-
ilar reasons that constitution, regarded in itself, sepa-
rately from a purpose of redemption which attended
it, would have been unkind. But if, as has also been
clearly shown, a provision of redemption which was
intended to deliver men from the disastrous results
foreknown to accrue from that constitution could not
relieve it from the charge of intrinsic injustice, so
neither could it rid it of the imputation of intrinsic
unkindness. Now, this would necessarily have been
true, even if the redeeming provision had made the
salvation of every man absolutely certain. The Ar-
minian scheme is loaded with this difficulty at its very
start. But this is not all; the difficulty is greatly en-
hanced by the position that the provision of redemp-
tion was not intended to secure the certain salvation
of every man from the consequences of the Fall. It
was only designed to make it possible. It secured the
Objection from Divine Goodness. 287
possibility of deliverance from the efTects of the un-
kindness done him in the Adamic constitution. But
it is urged that it is men's own fault if they avail not
themselves of the deliverance tendered them. Yes,
but until the tender is actually made them, they suffer
from the unkindness done them. And more than
this: their refusal of the tendered salvation — and
many refuse it — is instigated by the corrupt principle
which through unkiudness they derived from a con-
nectiou with Adam to which " they were not consent-
ing." Is it not, in view^ of these considerations, evi-
dent that the Arminian has a hard task when he
undertakes to exhibit the consistency of his doctrine
with divine goodness — hard enough, at least, to make
him less forward in urging against the Calvinistic
doctrine the charge of inconsistency with the benev-
olence of God.
Secondly, the case of the heathen is a stumbling-
stone to the Arminian scheme. According to that
scheme, the provision of redemption was made for all
mankind, the atoning death of Christ was intended to
confer saving benefits upon all without distinction.
Discrimination between individuals w^ould not be
consistent with divine goodness. The love of God
was catholic, it terminated upon every soul of man.
Hence Christ died for every individual of the race —
that is, he died for every man to make the salvation
of every man possible. Consequently, the offer of
salvation is to be extended to every man, so as to
give him the opportunity of accepting it; his own
free acceptance of it being the divinely appointed
condition of his possible salvation becoming to him
an actual salvation. To this end, the grace of the
288 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
Holy Spirit, acquired for the whole race by the merits
of Christ, is given to every nian to assist him to ac-
cept the offer, to incline his will to avail itself of it
and so determine the question of his salvation.
At first view it would appear as if the benevolence
of God were highly exemplified in this scheme, which
inchides within its ample and generous scope every
individual of our fallen and hapless race; especially
when it is contrasted with the narrower and more con-
tracted scheme of the Calvinist, which, although it
asserts not a merely possible but a certain salvation,
confines its benefits to the elect. But a formidable
difficulty at once springs up and opposes this judg-
ment. The HEATHEN,— v/hat of them? Their
salvation was made possible by the redemptive pro-
vision. Christ died to make their salvation possible.
The blessings he purchased by his blood were in-
tended for every soul of man, and, therefore, intended
for them. Now, how comes it to pass that goodness
so extraordinarily manifested in making this pro-
vision for their salvation, does not inform them that
it was made? It is possible for them now to partake
of it and be saved — to eat of the abundant bread, to
drink of the living water and quaff the refreshing
wine. But the heathen know nothiuQ- of this. It is
their designation — their definition, that they are
ignorant of the gospel. None who know the gospel,
however imperfectly, can properly be denominated
heathen. But there are millions of heathen, strictly
so called; human beings who have no knowledge
whatsoever of the gospel and the scheme of redemp-
tion it reveals. The question must be answered.
Where, so far as they are concerned, is the goodness
Objection from Divine Goodness. 289
in making the redeeming provision? But it was
made for them. Well, of what avail is it to them
unless they know that fact? Where is the goodness
in concealing from some of the beneficiaries of the
redemptive provision the fact that it was made for
them'? The provision was made for all, but only a
few comparatively know of it. Why does not the
goodness that filled the storehouse and threw open its
doors invite all the starving to come and partake?
Why are the invitations extended only to some?
Surely, it is difficult to reconcile this amazing fact
with goodness.
It is in vain to reply that the invitation is extended
to all. How, we ask, is it extended? If the answer
be In the Bible; Yes, we rejoin, but the heathen
know nothing of the Bible. The invitation is on the
card but the card is not sent to the heathen. If it
have been already extended, why send foreign mission-
aries at great sacrifice to themselves and heavy ex-
pense to the church, to convey it to them? Do they
not make the first ofibr of the gospel to the contem-
porary heathen? No, the invitation has not been ex-
tended to all of them, although the provision is
affirmed to have been made for all. The question is
repeated. How is this reconcilable with goodness?
Were one disposed to imitate the example of some
Arminian objectors to the Calvinistic scheme, it would
be easy to paint harrowing rhetorical pictures, in
order to aggravate the force of this_ difficulty. But
the purpose is to argue and not declaim.
It would be equally vain to say, that the heathen
mav know of the redemptive provision made for them
if they would. For the question is, how they could
19
290 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
will to know of it. If they have no information of
its existence^ how conld they desire its knowledge f
Will it be said, that the means of intercommunication
between the different parts of the w^orld are so great,
that the knowledge of the gospel scheme is accessible
to them? The ready answer is, How would that
affect the heathen who lived in past centuries of the
Christian era, not to speak of the unnumbered myri-
ads who preceded it in time? They had not the
benefit of this modern intercommunication between
races. But take the case of contemporary heathen,
and it cannot be foro^otten that if the knowledore of
the gospel plan be accessible to them, on the supposi-
tion that they would put forth efforts to acquire it,
they have no disposition to seek it. It is one of the
results of acquaintance wnth the gospel that the dis-
position to know it is engendered. Even when it is
made known, vast numbers of the heathen actually
reject it. What room, then, is there for holding that
they might know of the provision of redemption
made for them, if they would? Their corrupt na-
tures preclude their being willing to acquire the
knowledge. The gospel must be sent to them, else
they will not hear it ; they must hear, else they will
not believe; they must believe, else they perish.
Such is Paul's argument.^ How then can the provi-
dence which fails to acquaint the heathen with the
redeeming provision made for them be, on the Ar-
minian scheme, harmonized with goodness?
Further, it is a cardinal element of the Arminian
system that the actual experience of salvation is sus-
pended upon the voluntary accceptance of it. Men
^ Rom. X.
Objectio)i from Divine Goodfiei>s. 291
must not be constrained by efficacious grace to accept
it. Grace cannot make them willing. Their power
of otherwise determining is inalienable. Did they
not possess the power of self-determination in refer-
ence to the question of accepting the offer of salva-
tion, they would cease to be men. If converted by
efficacious grace, they would not be converted men,
but converted machines. Men, however assisted by
grace, must, at last, by a choice of their own wills,
which might reject it, accept the offer of salvation.
If this be not conceded to be an element of the Ar-
minian system, its chief differentiating feature is
denied. Without it, its distinctive existence, as a
coherent system, would cease.
This being the case, how does it consist with good-
ness, that the opportunity to fulfil the condition upon
which the experience of salvation is suspended, is not
given to some of those for whom redemption was pro-
vided ? It being necessary to their participation of
its blessings that they should, in the free exercise of
their own wills, accept the offer of them, how does it
consist with goodness that the offer is not extended to
them ? If it be not extended to them, they cannot
accept it; if they do not accept it, they cannot be
saved. But it is an undeniable fact, that the offer has
not in the past, and is not now, extended to myriads
of the heathen world. The difficulty is insuperable.
To avoid this difficulty, it may be said that the
heathen who know not the gospel may be saved
through the benefits of the atonement indirectly ap-
plied to them. But this supposition is in flat contra-
diction to the fundamental element of the Arminian
scheme just signalized — namely, that men must freely
292 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianisni.
accept the offer of salvation in order to experience its
benefits. Both cannot be true. Which alternative
will be elected ? If the former, the integrity of the
Arminian system is sacrificed; if the latter, the salva-
tion of the heathen is pronounced impossible; and the
difficulty suggested by goodness re-appears and asserts
itself in all its formidable force.
Again, this indirect application of the redeeming
provision to the heathen must be held to be either not
saving, or saving. If it be held to be not saving, of
what use is it? What real benefit does it confer?
It could not be a measure of goodness, certainly not
of saving goodness. If it be held to be saving, the
question must be met. How is it saving? That which
leads to salvation must lead to holiness. Will it be
contended that this indirect application of the bene-
fits of redemption contributes to the holiness of the
heathen ? Facts contradict so wild an hypothesis.
What is accomplished ? Not faith in Christ, not re-
pentance for sin, not godly living. What, then? Are
the heathen taken to heaven and made partakers of
its holy fellowship and employments without any
spiritual preparation for such a change? Surely not.
It would seem then that no saving benefit is conferred
upon them by this fancied application of redemption
indirectly to their case. The truth is, the supposition
is too extravagant to be gravely supported, or to de-
serve serious refutation. We have not yet discovered
the goodness which is manifested to the. heathen
through the provision of redemption. But let us
pursue the quest.
It may be said that as infants may unconsciously
receive the benefits of atonement and the reeenera-
Objection from Divine Goodness. 293
ting grace of the Holy Spirit, tliey being incapable
of understanding the truth or apprehending the gos-
pel offer, so may it be with the heathen. But, let us
know what heathen are meant. Is it heathen infants
dying in infancy ? That is not denied. But that is
not the question. The question is in regard to adult
heathen. If they be put into the category of saved
infants, then they must be dealt wuth as saved infants
are dealt with. They must be purged from the guilt
of original sin and regenerated by the grace of the
Spirit, and that must be accomplished for them with-
out their consciousness of the influences exerted upon
them, or the change of state and character effected,
and without their active concurrence with the work
of the Spirit. Is it thus that God deals with adult
sinners, with fully developed and atrociously wicked
sinners? Is it thus that he sovereignly saves them
without any action of their own wnlls? Is it thus
that Arminians glorify sovereign grace? Verily
those who would take this ground w^ould out-Calvin
Calvin in their maintenance of unconditional salva-
tion. Nor is this the worst of it. These people who
like infant sinners are justified and regenerated, live
on as adult sinners, perpetrating crimes which are
the climax of wickedness, substituting idols in the
place of the living God, unconscious that they had
been born again into the kingdom of grace and justi-
fied by the blood of Christ, or that they had lapsed
from the possession of these inestimable blessings !
And these are the people to whom as to infants dying
in infancy the provision of redemption is indirectly
applied !
To meet this formidable difficulty growing out of
294 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisin.
the consideration that the goodness which made a
provision of redemption for all men has not pnblished
the fact to all, it has been maintained that the
heathen really have access to some knowledge of the
gospel; for, they live under the patriarchal dispensa-
tion and have some traditional acquaintance with the
first promise of redemption for man which was its
characteristic element. Had this view not beeu
seriously advocated by a distinguished theologian,^
it might be deemed a shadow conjured up merely for
the sake of argument. A few remarks will be made
with reference to it:
In the first place, every dispensation of the gospel,
except the final, is, from the nature of the case,
bounded by definite limits. When, in the develop-
ment of the divine plan, it has accomplished its end,
it expires by its own limitation. It gives place to
another, for which it has prepared the way ; another,
in a measure evolved out of it by an expansion of its
principles, but also specifically marked off from it by
new supernatural revelations and new facts and ele-
ments. When the new begins, the old vanishes — it
ceases, as a dispensation, to exist. Each dispensa-
tion of the gospel must be regarded as a special form
of administration of the covenant of grace. There is
an essence which is common to all the dispensations.
It is the saving provisions of the covenant. This
essential feature passes from one dispensation to
another. It is a fixed and invariable quantity. But
there are also specific features which as peculiar to
each dispensation are accidental and temporary. It
is these which give to each its cast. When they
^ Richard Watson.
Objection from Divine Goodness. 295
cease, the dispensation as such ceases. Its distinctive
law is no more operative. The covenant, as to its
essential provisions, is permanent, but the special
form of its administration is abrogated, and another
is substituted in its room. This is the argument of
the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the
seventh and eighth chapters: "If, therefore, perfec-
tion were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it
the people received the law,) what further need was
there that another priest should rise after the order of
Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of
Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is
made of necessity a change also of the law." "For
if that first covenant had been faultless, then should
no place have been sought for the second. For find-
ing fault with them, he saith. Behold, the days come,
saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
. . . In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath
made the first old. Now that which decayeth and
waxeth old is ready to vanish aw^ay." The meaning
could not be that the covenant of grace as to its es-
sential features was about to vanish away, but the
special form in which it had last been administered —
the Mosaic dispensation. That was decaying and
waxing old, and was ready to vanish away.
If the Jew should now claim, because he has the
knowledge of the Mosaic dispensation, that he is liv-
ing under it as one in present operation, the Christian
would reply that he makes a grievous mistake: that
dispensation, having discharged its typical and tem-
porary office, has passed away and given place to the
Christian dispensation. The argument is a fortiori \n
296 Calzrinism and Evaitgelical A7^m{nianism,
respect to the Patriarchal dispensation. That, thou-
sands of years ago, gave way to the Mosaic, as the
Mosaic has now made room for the Christian. Be-
tween the time of its abrogation and the present, one
whole dispensation and part of the history of another
have intervened. It died, as a dispensation, ages ago.
To say then that the heathen live under it, is to affirm,
in the face of facts and inspired testimony alike, its
present existence and operation.
But it may be contended that a knowledge of the
first promise may survive the dispensation which con-
tained it. If by this is meant a knowledge that there
was such a promise, who v>^ould deny the proposition ?
Christians know that such a promise once existed, but
they also know that the dispensation which contained
it once existed. Of what value is such historical
knowledge to the heathen, even if it be supposed that
they have it? Can it contribute to their salvation?
But the promise, as such, no longer exists. It has
been fulfilled, and therefore it necessarily expired.
How can there be a promise of what has been ? To
say, then, that the heathen may be saved through a
knowledge of the first promise, is to say that they
may be saved through a knowledge of nothing. \i
they believe that the promise still exists, they believe
a delusion. Can that save them ?
So was it with animal sacrifices. They were typi-
cal promises of the atoning death of Christ. That
having been accomplished, they necessarily ceased.
To maintain them still is to deny the past fact of
Christ's death, and that would be anti-Christian. To
maintain them in ignorance of the testimony that
Christ has died, is to maintain senseless and empty
Objection from Divine Goodness. 297
rites, which can no longer be types, and therefore
have no right to exist. The heathen conseqnently
cannot be led throngh animal sacrifices to a saving
knowledge of redemption. No knowledge of the
Patriarchal dispensation and the first promise an-
nonnced by it, which the heathen may be imagined
to possess, conld be to them a medinm of salvation.
In the second place, it is nnsupposable that they
retain snch knowledge in sufficient degree to make it
saving. IMnltitndes of the heathen received a knowl-
edge of the gospel throngh the preaching of the
apostles, of their contemporary fellow-laborers and of
the evangelists who succeeded them. But they have
lost it. What reason is there for supposing that they
retain a knowledge of the indistinct elements of the
Patriarchal dispensation, when they have forgotten
the clearer provisions and the glorious facts of the
Christian? Is it at all likely that traditions coming
down from a period hoary with age would survive
those descending from one more recent?
But why argue this question? One cannot avoid
the consciousness that in discussing it he is acting
uselessly and preposterously. Facts prove that the
heathen have no such knowledge of the first gospel
promise as is alleged. No missionary encounters it.
It is a mere dream that it exists. And the conviction
that it does not, furnishes a ground for those mission-
ary labors which Arminian bodies are prosecuting, at
so great an expenditure of men and means, among
the heathen tribes of earth. To say that these noble
efforts find a sufficient reason in the need which the
heathen have of clearer light than they already pos-
sess would be to threaten them with extinction. We
29S Calvtnis77i and Evangelical Arminianism.
may safely oppose the practical work of Foreign Mis-
sions to all hypotheses which assume for the heathen
any knowledge whatsoever of the provisions of the
gospel.
To conclude this particular argument: if the heathen
have not been informed of that provision of redemp-
tion which, it is contended, was made for all mankind
and consequently for them, how is that amazing fact
to be reconciled with divine goodness ? The Armin-
ian, who has this gigantic difficulty to meet, may well
refrain from objecting to the Calvinistic doctrine that
it is inconsistent with the goodness of God. His own
hands are full.
Thirdly, it is impossible to prove, that a scheme
which provides for the possible salvation of all men
more conspicuously displays the divine goodness than
one which secures the certain salvation of some men.
The words, atonement offered for all men, universal
atonement, Christ died to save all men, Christ died
for every soul of man, — these words are very attract-
ive. They seem to breathe a philanthropy which is
worthy of God. But let us not be imposed upon by
the beauty or pomp of mere phrases. What is the
exact meaning of the language ? It is elliptical, and,
to be understood, must be filled out. The meaning
is, that atonement was offered for all men, that Christ
died for all men, merely to make the salvation of all
men possible: therefore the meaning is not what the
language appears to imply — namely, that atonement
was offered for all men to secure their salvation; that
Christ died to save all men. That is explicitly de-
nied. It is the heresy of Universalism. Let it be
noticed — attention is challenged to it — that, upon the
i
Objectioji from Divine Goodness. 299
Arminian scheme, the whole result of the atonement,
of the death of Christ, of the mission of the Holy
Ghost, is the sal-ability of all men— the possible sal-
vation of all. Dispel the glamor from these charm-
ing words, and that is absolutely all that they mean.
But let us go on. What precisely is meant by the
possible salvation of all men ? It cannot mean the
probable salvation of all men. If it did, the word
probable yNOwX^ have been used; but facts would have
contradicted the theory. Not even the Arminian
would assert the probable salvation of all men, in
consequence of the atonement. It is then only a pos-
sible salvation that is intended. Now what makes
the salvation of all possible? It is granted, that all
obstacles in the way of any sinner's return to God
are, on God's side, removed. The Calvinist admits
that, equally with the Arminian. Where then lies
the difference? What does the Arminian mean by a
salvation possible to all ? He means a salvation that
may be secured, if the human will consent to receive
it. To give this consent it is persuaded by grace.
But it is not constrained by grace to give it. It
holds the decision of the question in its power. It
may accept the offered salvation; it may not. The
whole thing is contingent upon the action of the
sinner's will. This is what makes the salvation of
all men merely possible; and it inevitably follows
that the destruction of all men is also possible.
I shall, with divine help, presently prove that a
possible salvation, contingent upon the action of a
sinner's will, is really an impossible salvation. But
conceding now, for argument's sake, that there is such
a thing as a merely possible salvation of all men, it is
300 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisni.
repeated, that it cannot be shown to exhibit the
beneficence of God one whit more clearly than does
the certain salvation of some men. Upon the Cal-
vinistic scheme, the absolnte certainty of the salva-
tion of countless multitudes of the race is provided
for; on the Arminian, the certainty of the salvation
of not one human being is provided for. But let it
be admitted that although not provided for, yet in
some way, the final result will in fact prove to be the
certain salvation of countless multitudes. How can
the Arminian show that these multitudes will exceed
in number those which are saved upon the Calvinistic
scheme? He can not. The human faculties have
no data upon which they can institute such an equa-
tion. But until that is shown, it is impossible to see
how his scheme more signally displays the saving
goodness of God than the Calvinist's. One thing is
clear: according to the Calvinistic doctrine, those
who are saved will praise God's goodness for hav-
ing saved them; and, according to the Arminian,
they will praise his goodness for having made it pos-
sible for them to be saved. Which would be the
directer tribute to the divine benevolence, it may be
left to common sense to judge.
The Arminian, however, if he should candidly
admit that his scheme labors under the difficulties
which have been mentioned, will still reply, that it
has, in regard to goodness, this advantage over the
Calvinistic: that it makes possible the salvation of
those whose salvation the Calvinistic scheme makes
impossible. He charges, that while the Calvinistic
scheme makes the salvation of some certain, it makes
the destruction of some equally certain. The one
Objection frojn Divine Goodness. 301
scheme opens the door of hope to all; the other
closes it against some. This, it is contended, cannot
be shown to consist with the goodness of God. It is
not intended to deny that this is a difficulty which
the Calvinistic scheme has to carry. Its adherents
are sufficiently aware of the awful mystery which
hangs round this subject, and of the limitations upon
their faculties, to deter them from arrogantly claim-
ing to understand the whole case. The difficulty is
this: If God can, on the ground of the all-sufficient
merit of Christ, save those who actually perish, why
does not his goodness lead him to save them? Why,
if he know that, without his efficacious grace, they
will certainly perish, does he withhold from them
that grace, and so seal the certainty of tkeir destruc-
tion? These solemn questions the Calvinist pro-
fesses his ability to answer only in the words of our
l^lessed Lord: "Even so. Father, for so it seemed
good in thy sight."
But should the Arminian, professing to decide how
the Deity should proceed in relation to sinners, use
this conceded difficulty for the purpose of showing
that the Calvinist imputes malignity to God, it is fair,
it is requisite, to prove that he has no right to press
this objection — that it is incumbent on him to look to
his own defences. What if it should turn out that he
is oppressed by a still greater difficulty?
In the first place, the Evangelical Arminian admits
that God perfectly forekne.w all that will ever come
to pass. Consequently, he admits that God foreknew
what, and how many, human beings will finally per-
ish. He must also admit that God foreknows that he
will judge them at the last day, and that what God
302 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
foreknows he will do on that day, he must have
eternally purposed to do. The final condemnation,
therefore, of a definite number of men is absolutely
certain. The question is not now whether God makes
it certain. Let us not leave the track. What it is
asserted the Arminian must admit is, that it is cer-
tain. Now this is very dififerent from saying that
God eternally knew that all men would perish, unless
he should interpose to save them. For he foreknew
his purpose to make such an interposition in behalf
of some of the race, and so foreknew the absolute cer-
tainty of their final salvation. The case before us is,
not that God knew that those who will actually per-
ish would perish unless he interposed to save them.
It is, that he foreknew that they will finally perish.
But if this must be admitted — that God foreknew
with certainty that some human beings will be, at
the last day, adjudged by him to destruction, then
their destruction is certain. Now we crave to know
how a provision of redemption which made their sal-
vation possible can exercise any effect upon their
destiny. Their destruction is to God's knowledge
certain. How can the possibility of their salvation
change that certainty? It cannot. Where, then, is
the goodness to them of the redeeming provision? It
is impossible to see.
Further, how can salvation be possible to those
who are certain to be lost? How can their salvation
be possible, if their destruction be certain? There is
but one conceivable answer: it is, that although God
foreknew that they zvould be lost, he also foreknew
that they might be saved. That is to say, there was
an extrinsic impossibility of their salvation created
Objectio7i from Divific Goodness. 303
by God's certain foreknowledge, but an intrinsic
possibility of their salvation growing out of their
ability to avail themselves of the provision of redemp-
tion. It may be pleaded that their case is like that
of Adam in innocence. God knew that he would
fall, but he also knew that he might stand. This
brings us to the next point, and that will take us
down to one of the fundamental difficulties of the
Arminian scheme.
In the second place, a possible salvation would be
to a sinner an impossible salvation. Mere salvability
would be to him inevitable destruction. It will be
admitted, without argument, that a possible salvation
is not, in itself, an actual salvation. That which
may be is not that which is. Before a possible can
become an actual salvation something needs to be
done — a condition must be performed upon which is
suspended its passage from possibility to actuality.
The question is, What is this thing which needs to be
done — what is this condition which must be fulfilled
before salvation can become a fact to the sinner?
The Arminian answer is : Repentance and faith on
the sinner's part. He must consent to turn from his
iniquities and accept Christ as his Saviour. The
further question presses, By what agency does the
sinner perform this condition — by what power does
lie repent, believe, and so accept salvation? The
answer to this question, whatever it may be, must
indicate the agency, the power, which determines the
sinner's repenting, believing and so accepting salva-
tion. It is not enough to point out an agency, a
power, which is, however potent, merely an auxil-
iary to the determining cause. It is the determining
304 Calvinism and Evangelical Anninianism.
cause itself that must be given as the answer to the
question. It must be a factor which renders, by
virtue of its own energy, the final decision — an effi-
cient cause which, by its own inherent causality,
makes a possible salvation an actual and experi-
mental fact. What is this causal agent which is the
sovereign arbiter of human destiny? The Arminian
answer to this last question of the series is, The sin-
ner's will.^ It is the sinner's will which, in the last
resort, determines the question whether a possible,
shall become an actual, salvation. This has already
been sufficiently evinced in the foregoing remarks.
But what need is there of argument to prove what
any one, even slightly acquainted with Arminian
theology, knows that it maintains? Indeed, it is one
of the distinctive and vital features of that theology,
contra-distinguishing it to the Calvinistic. The Cal-
[vinist holds that the efficacious and irresistible grace
'of God applies salvation to the sinner; the Arminian,
that the ijrace of God althoug^h communicated to
every man is inefficacious and resistible, and that the
sinner's will uses it as merely an assisting influence
in determining the final result of accepting a possible
salvation and so making it actual. Grace does not
determine the will; the will "improves" the grace
and determines itself. Grace is the handmaid, the
sinner's will the mistress. Let us suppose that in
regard to the question whether salvation shall be
accepted, there is a perfect equipoise between the
motions of grace and the contrary inclinations of the
sinner's will. A very slight added influence will
destroy the equilibrium. Shall it be from grace or
' Wesley, Watson, Ila3'moud, et al.
Objection from Divine Goodness. 305
from the sinner's will ? If from the former, grace
determines the question, and the Calvinistic doctrine
is admitted. But that the Arminian denies. It
must then be from the sinner's will ; and however
slight and inconsiderable this added influence of the
will may be, it determines the issue. It is like the
feather that alights upon one of two evenly balanced
scales and turns the beam.
Moreover, this will of the sinner which discharges
the momentous office of determining the question of
salvation is his natural will. It cannot be a gracious
will, that is, a will renewed by grace ; for if it were,
the sinner would be already in a saved condition.
But the very question is, Will he consent to be saved?
Now if it be not the will of a man already in a saved
condition, it is the will of a man yet in an unsaved
condition. It is the will of an unbelieving and un-
converted man, that is, a natural man, and conse-
quently must be a natural will. It is this natural
will, then, which finally determines the question
whether a possible salvation shall become an actual.
It is its high office to settle the matter of practical
salvation. In this solemn business, as in all others,
it has an irrefragable autonomy. Not even in the
critical transition from the kingdom of Satan into the
kingdom of God's dear Son, can it be refused the
exercise of its sacred and inalienable prerogative of
contrary choice. At the supreme moment of the
final determination of the soul "for Christ to live and
die," the determination mii^^ht be otherwise. The
will may be illuminated, moved, assisted by grace,
but not controlled and determined by it. To the
last it has the power of resisting grace and of success-
3o6 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisni.
fully resisting it. To it — I use the language re-
luctantly— the blessed Spirit of God is represented as
sustaining the attitude of the persuasive orator of
grace. He argues, he pleads, he expostulates, he
warns, he beseeches the sinner's will in the melting
accents of Calvary and alarms it with the thunders of
judgment — but that is all. He cannot without tres-
passing upon its sovereignty renew and re-create and
determine his will. This is no misrepresentation,
no exaggeration, of the Arminian's position. It is
what he contends for. It is what he must contend
for. It is one of the hinges on which his system
turns. Take it away, and the system swings loosely
and gravitates to an inevitable fall.
Now this is so palpably opposed to Scripture and
the facts of experience, that Evangelical Arminians
endeavor to modify it, so as to relieve it of the charge
of being downright Pelagianism. That the attempt
is hopeless, has already been shown. It is utterly
vain to say, that grace gives ability to the sinner
sufficient for the formation of that final volition
which decides the question of personal salvation.
Look at it. Do they mean, by this ability, regener-
ating grace? If they do, as regenerating grace un-
questionably determines the sinner's will^ they give
up their position and adopt the Calvinistic. No;
they affirm that they do not, because the Calvinistic
position is liable to two insuperable objections: first,
I that it limits efficacious grace to the elect, denying it
to others; secondly, that efficacious and determining
grace would contradict the laws by which the human
will is governed. It comes back to this, then: that
notwithstanding this imparted ability, the natural
Objection from Divine Coodjiess. 307
will is the factor which determines the actual relation
of the soul to salvation. The admission of a gracious
ability, therefore, does not relieve the difficulty. It
is not an efficacious and determining- influence; it is
simply suasion. The natural will may yield to it or
resist it. It is a vincible influence.
Now this being the real state of the case, according
to the Arminian scheme, it is perfectly manifest that
no sinner could be saved. There is no need of argu-
ment." It is simply out of the question, that the
sinner in the exercise of his natural will can repent,
believe in Christ, and so make a possible salvation
actual. Let it be clearly seen that, in the final settle-
ment of the question of personal religion, the Armin-
ian doctrine is, that the will does not decide as de-
termined by the grace of God, but by its own in-
herent self-determining power, and the inference, if
any credit is attached to the statements of Scripture,
is forced upon us, that it makes the salvation of the
sinner impossible. A salvation, the appropriation of
which is dependent upon the sinner's natural will, is
no salvation; and the Arminian position is that the
appropriation of salvation is dependent upon the
natural will of the sinner. The stupendous paradox
is thus shown to be true — that a merely possible sal-
vation is an impossible salvation.
If in reply to this argument the Arminian should
say, that he does not hold that the merely natural
will wdiich is corrupt is the final determining agent,
but that the will makes the final decision by reason
of some virtue characterizing it, the rejoinder is ob-
vious: first, this virtue must either be inherent in
the natural will of the sinner, or be communicated by
3o8 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
grace. If it be inherent in the natnral will, it is ad-
mitted that it is the natural will itself, through a
power r-esident in it, which determines to improve
communicated grace and appropriate salvation ; and
that would confirm the charge that the Arminian
makes the final decision to accept salvation depend
upon the natural will, which w^ould be to render sal-
vation impossible. If this virtue in the will which
determines it to make the final decision be communi-
cated by grace, it is a part of the gracious ability im-
parted to the sinner; and then we would have a part
of this communicated gracious ability improving
another part — that is, gracious ability improving
gracious ability. Now this would be absurd on any
other supposition than that grace is the determining
agent, and that supposition th^ Arminian rejects.
iTo state the case briefly : either this virtue in the will
jwhicli is the controlling element is grace or it is not.
.'If it be grace, then" grace is the determining element,
and the Calvinistic doctrine is admitted. If it be not
grace, then the will by its natural power is the deter-
mining element, and that is impossible, — it is impos-
jsible for the natural will, which is itself sinful and
beeds to be renewed, to determine the question of
Practical salvation.
Let us put the matter in a different light. There
must be some virtue in the natural man to lead him
to improve grace — to use gracious ability. Now
whence is this virtue? It must be either from God,
or from himself. If it be from God, then the cause
which determines the question of accepting salvation
-.s from God, and the Calvinistic doctrine is admitted.
If it be from himself, then it is the natural will which
Objection from Divine Goodness. 309
uses the gracious ability, aud determiues the appro-
priatiou of salvation; and that is impossible.
Further, the Arminian must admit either that the
will makes the final decision in consequence of some
virtue in it, or that it makes it without all virtue. If
in consequence of some virtue, then as that virtue is
distinguished from the grace it uses, it is merely
natural, and the natural will is affirmed to be virtuous
enough to decide the all-important question of salva-
tion; which is contrary to the doctrine, maintained
by Evangelical Arminians, that the natural man is
depraved, and destitute of saving virtue. If the will
makes the final decision without all virtue, then the
natural will, as sinful, improves grace to the salva-
tion of the soul, which is absurd and impossible.
The Arminian is shut up to admit that it is the
natural will of the sinner which improves grace and
determines the question of personal salvation ; and it
is submitted, that such a position makes salvation
impossible.
There is another mode of showing that, according
to the distinctive principles of the Arminian system,
salvation is impossible. The Scriptures unquestion-
ably teach that salvation is. by grace: "By grace ye
are saved. "^ Not only so, but with equal clearness
they teach that none can be saved except by grace;
that no sinner can save himself: "Not by works of
righteousness wdiich we have done, but according to
his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regenera-
tion and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed
on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
that being justified by his grace, we should be made
1 Hub. ii. 5, S.
3IO Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
heirs according to the hope of eternal life."^ There
is no need to argue this point, since it is admitted by
Evangelical Arminians as well as by Calvinists.
Their common doctrine is that no sinner can save
himself. If his salvation depended upon his saving
himself it would be impossible. But the distinctive
doctrines of Arniinianism — the doctrines which dis-
tinguish it from Calvinism — necessitate the inference
that the sinner saves himself. This inference is ille-
gitimate, the Arminian contends, because he holds
that had not Christ died to make salvation possible
and were not the Holy Spirit imparted to induce the
sinner to embrace it, no man could be saved. This,
however, is no proof of the illegitimacy of the infer-
ence from his doctrine that the sinner is after all his
own saviour. The proof of the legitimacy of the
inference is established in this way: According to
Arniinianism, sufficient grace is imparted to all men.
-Every man has, consequently, sufficient ability to
repent, believe and embrace salvation. This suffi-
cient grace or ability, therefore, is common to all
men. But that it does not determine all men to be
saved is proved by the fact that some are not saved.
This the Arminian holds. Now, wdiat makes the
difference between the saved and the unsaved? Why
is one man saved and another not saved? The
answer to these questions is of critical importance
and it must be rendered. What answer does the
Arminian return? This: The reason is, that one
man determines to improve the common grace and
^another does not. He cannot hold that grace makes
the difference, for grace is the common possession of
1 Tit. iii. 5-7.
Objection from Divine Goodness. 311
both. The specific difference of their cases is the
respective determinations of their own wills, nnde-
terniined by grace. He therefore who determines to
use the common gift cannot be saved by it, but by
his determination to use it. If it be not that which
saves him, but the grace itself, then all who have the
grace would be saved by it equally with him. No, it
is not grace which saves him, but his use of grace.^
And as he might have determined not to use it, it is
manifest that he is saved by the exercise of his own
will; in other words that he saves himself The
saving factor is his will; he is his own saviour.
This is made still plainer by asking the question,
Why is another not saved, but ruined? He had the
same sufficient grace with him who is saved. His
own determination not to use it, it will be said, is
the cause of his ruin — he therefore ruins himself
In the same way precisely the determination of the
saved man to use it is the cause of his salvation — he,
therefore, saves himself Granted, that he could not
be saved without grace; still, grace only makes his
salvation possible. He must make it a fact; and
bevond controversy, he who makes his salvation a
fact accomplishes his salvation. He saves himself
This reasoning conclnsively evinces it to be a nec-
essarv consequence from the distinctive doctrines of
Arminianism, that sinners are not saved by grace but
by themselves in the use of grace ; and as that posi-
tion contradicts the plainest teachings of Scripture,
the system which necessitates it makes salvation im-
possible.
To all this it will be replied, that the ability con-
ferred by grace pervades the will itself, and enables,
312 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism,
although it does not determine, it to make the final
and saving decision. But this by no means mends
the matter. Let it be admitted that the will is
enabled by grace to decide ; if it is not determined
by it to the decision, then it follows that there is
something in the will different from the gracious
ability, which uses that ability in determining the
result. What is that different element? It cannot
be a gracious power. To admit that would be to
contradict the supposition and to give up the ques-
tion ; for in that case it would be grace which de-
termines the decision. What can that be which
differs from the gracious ability conferred and uses it,
but the natin^al power of the sinner's will? But his
will, apart from grace, is sinful and therefore dis-
abled. So the Arminian admits. How, then, can a
disabled thing use enabling grace? How can it de-
termine to use that grace? Over and beyond the
enabling power there is postulated a determining
power. The enabling power is grace ; over and be-
yond it is the determining power of the sinful will.
The thing is inconceivable. Sin cannot use grace ;
inability cannot use ability ; the dead cannot de-
termine to use life. To say then that grace is in-
fused into the will itself to enable it to form the final
volition, which makes a possible salvation actual,
does not remove the difficulty. If it does not de-
termine the will, the wuU determines itself The
very essence of that self-determination is to use or not
to use the enabling grace, and therefore must be
something different from that grace. The determina-
tion is not from grace, but from nature. Again the
impossibility of salvation is reached. A doctrine
Objection from Divine Goodness, 313
which assigns to grace a merely enabling influence,
and denies it a determining power, makes the salva-
tion of a sinner impossible. To say to a sinner, Use
the natural strength of your will in determining to
avail yourself of grace, would be to say to him, You
cannot be saved. For if he answered from the
depths of his consciousness, he would groan out the
response, Alas, I have no such strength !
The truth is, that a thorough examination of the
anthropology of the Arminian discloses the fact that,
in the last analysis, it is not essentially different from
that of the Socinian and Pelagian. It is cheerfully
conceded that the Arminian soteriology is different
from the Socinian and Pelagian. For the former
professedly holds that the atonement of Christ was '.
vicarious and that it rendered a perfect satisfaction to
the retributive justice of God. But, according to it,
the atonement did not secure salvation as a certain
result to any human beings ; and when it comes to
the question how the sinner practically avails himself
of the salvation made only possible to all, the Armin-
ian answers it by saying, that the sinner in the exer-
cise of his own self-determining power, which from
its nature is contingent in its exercise, makes sal va-'
tion his own. The connection between his soul and
redemption is effected by his own decision, in the
formation of which he is conscious that he might act
otherwise — that he might make" a contrary choice..
There is no real difference between this position and
that of the Socinian and Pelagian. The Arminian
professes to attach more importance than they to the
influence of supernatural grace, but, in the last resort,
like them he makes the natural power of the sinner's
314 Calvinis7n and Evangelical Ainninianism.
will the determining cause of personal salvation.
Every consideration, therefore, which serves to show
the impossibility of salvation upon the anthropologi-
cal scheme of Socinianism and Pelagianism leads to
the conclusion that the same consequence is enforced
by that of Arminianisni. In both schemes it is
nature, and not grace, which actually saves.
Still further, the distinctive doctrines of Arminian-
isni not only make salvation impossible by denying
i that it is by grace, but also by implying that it is by
works. Not that it is intended to say that Armin-
ians in so many words affirm this. On the contrary,
they endeavor to show that their system is not liable
to this charge. We have, however, to deal with
their system and the logical consequences which it
involves. The question is. Do the peculiar tenets of
the Arminian scheme necessitate the inference that
salvation is by works? I shall attempt to prove that
they do. ■
It must be admitted that a system, one of the dis-
tinctive doctrines of which is that sinners are in a
state of legal probation, affirms salvation by works.
The essence of a legal probation is that the subject of
moral government is required to render personal
obedience to law in order to his being justified. It is
conceded on all hands that Adam's probation was of
such a character. He was required to produce a
legal obedience. Had it been produced it would
have been his own obedience. It makes no differ-
ence that he was empowered to render it by sufficient
grace. A righteousness does not receive its denom-
ination from the source in which it originates, but
from its nature and the end which it ©ontem relates.
Objection from Divine Goodness. 315
Had Adam stood, he would have been enabled by
grace to produce obedience, but it would have been
his own obedience, and it would have secured justi-
fication on its own account.
Now it will not be denied that Arminian divines
assert that men are now in a state of probation. It
wouia be unnecessary to adduce proof of this. They
contend that, in consequence of the atonement offered
by Christ for the race, all men become probationers.
A chan^e_is given them to secure salvation. The
onlv'question is, whether the probation which Ar-
minians affirm for sinners be a legal probation. That
it is, mav be proved by their own statements. If
they take the ground that the obedience to divine re-
quirements may be rendered through the ability con-
ferred bv grace, and therefore the probation is not
legal, the answer is obvious : the obedience exacted
of\dam he was enabled by grace to render ; but not-
withstanding that fact, his probation was legal.
That men now have grace enabling them to render
obedience cannot disprove the legal character of their
probation.
The argument has ramified into details, but it has
not wandered from the thing to be proved, to wit,
that a possible salvation is an impossible salvation.
All the consequences which have been portrayed as
damaging to the Arminian theory of a merely pos-
sible "salvation flow logically from the fundamental
position that sufficient ability is given to every man
to make such a merely possible salvation actual to
himself. One more consideration will be presented,
and it goes to the root of the matter. It is, that this
ability which is affirmed to be sufficient to enable
3i6 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
every man to make a possible salvation actual is,
according to Arminian showing, itself a sheer im-
possibility. This may be regarded as an extra-
ordinary assertion, but it is susceptible of proof as
speedy as it is clear. The Evangelical Arminian not
only admits the fact, but contends for it, that every
man in his natural, fallen condition is spiritually
dead — is dead in trespasses and sins. The problem
for him to solve is, How can this spiritually dead
man make his possible salvation an actual salvation?
It must not be done by the impartation to him of
efficacious and determining grace, for to admit that
would be to give up the doctrine of a possible salva-
tion and accept that of a decreed and certain salva-
tion. Nor must it be done by regenerating grace, for
two difficulties oppose that supposition : lirst, this
regenerating grace would necessarily be efficacious
and determining grace ; and secondly, it could not
with truth be maintained that every man is regen-
erated. A degree of grace, therefore, which is short
of regenerating grace, must be conferred upon every
man. What is that? Sufficient grace — that is to
say, a degree of grace imparting ability sufficient to
enable every man to make a possible salvation actu-
ally his own. Now, the argument is short : a degree
of o:race which does not res^enerate, would be a deq-ree
of grace which w^ould not bestow life upon, the
spiritually dead sinner. If it did infuse spiritual life
it would of course be regenerating grace ; but it is
denied to be regenerating grace. No other grace
would be sufficient for the dead sinner but regenerat-
ing or life-giving grace. How could grace enable the
dead sinner to perform living functions — to repent,
Objection from Divine Goodness. 317
to believe in Christ, to embrace salvation — without
first giving him life? In a word, sufficient grace
which is not regenerating grace is a palpable im-
possibility. An ability sufficient to enable the dead
sinner to discharge living functions but not sufficient
to make him live, is an impossibility. The Ar-^
minian is therefore shut up to a choice between two/
alternatives: either, he must confess sufficient grace
to be regenerating grace, and then he abandons his
doctrine; or, he must maintain that grace is suffi-'
cient for a dead sinner which does not make him
live, and then he asserts an impossibility.
If to this the Arminian reply, that the functions
which sufficient grace enables the sinner to perform
are not functions of spiritual life, it follows: first,
that he contradicts his own position that grace im-
parts a degree of spiritual life to every man; and,
secondly, that he maintains that a spiritually dead
man discharges functions which cause him to live,
which is infinitely absurd.
If, finally, he reply, that sufficient grace is life-
giving and therefore regenerating grace, but that it is
not efficacious, and does not determine the fact of the
sinner's salvation, the rejoinder is obvious: No spirit-
ually dead sinner can possibly be restored to life
except by union with Jesus Christ, the source of
spiritual life. To deny that position is to deny
Christianity. But if that must be admitted, as union
with Christ determines the present salvation of the
sinner, sufficient grace which gives life determines
the question of present salvation. Sufficient grace
gives life by uniting the sinner to Christ, and union
with Christ is salvation. Sufficient grrace which is
3i8 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianisni.
conceded to be regenerating, is therefore necessarily
efficacions and determining, grace.
We are now prepared to estimate the force of the
analogy which, under a preceding head, it was sup-
posed that the Arminian may plead between the case
of the sinner and that of Adam. Our first father had
sufficient grace, but it was not efficacious grace. It
did not determine his standing. It rendered it pos-
sible for him to stand, but it did not destroy the pos-
sibility of his falling. He had sufficient ability to
perform holy acts; nevertheless, it was possible for
him to sin. In like manner, it may be said, the
sinner, in his natural condition, has sufficient grace,
but not efficacious grace. It renders it possible for
him to accept salvation, but it does not destroy
the possibility of his rejecting it. He has suffi-
cient ability to repent and believe; yet, notwith-
standing this, he may continue impenitent and unbe-
lieving.
I admit the fact that Adam had sufficient o-race to
enable him to stand in' holiness, and that it was pos-
sible for him either to stand or fall ; but I deny that
there is any real analogy between his case and that
of the unregenerate sinner. It breaks down at a
point of the most vital consequence. That point is
the presence or absence of spiritual life. Adam, in
innocence, was possessed of spiritual life — he was,
spiritually considered, wholly alive. There was not
imparted to him — to use an Arminian phrase — "a
degree of spiritual life." Life reigned in all his
faculties. There was no element of spiritual death in
his being which was to be resisted and which in turn
opposed the motions of spiritual life. Now let it
Objection from Divine Goodness. 3 1 9
even be supposed, with the Arniinian, that a degree
of spiritual life is given to the spiritually dead sinner,
and it would necessarily follow that there is a degree
of spiritual death which still remains in him. What
conceivable analogy could exist between a being
wholly alive spiritually and one partly alive and
partly dead spiritually? What common relation to
grace could be predicated of them? How is it pos-
sible to conceive that grace which would be sufficient
for a wholly living man would also be sufficient for a
partly dead man? Take then the Arminian concep-
tion of the case of the sinner in his natural condition,
and it is obvious that there is no real analogy between
it and that of Adam in innocence.
But it has already been shown that the impartation
by grace of a degree of spiritual life to the sinner
which does not involve his regeneration is impossible.
Whatever grace and ability the Arminian may claim
for the sinner, if it fall short of regenerating grace, if
it does not quicken him in Christ Jesus, no life is
conuniuiicated by it. The sinner is still dead in
trespasses and sins. The communicated grace may
instruct him, but it does not raise him from the dead
— it is didactic, but not life-giving. It is the suasion
of oratory, not the energy of life. It operates upon
the natural faculties and becomes a motive to the
natural will. But it is precisely the natural will,
pervaded by spiritual death, which must decide
whether or not it will appropriate the spiritual in-
ducements and make them its own. In a word, a
dead man must determine whether he will yield to
the persuasion to live or not.
The Arminian theory defies comprehension. To
320 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
hold that sinners are not spiritually dead is to accept
the Pelao^ian and Socinian heresy that the natural
man is able to do saving works. This the Evangeli-
cal Arminian denies. He admits that the sinner is
spiritually dead, and that in his own strength he can
do no saving work. What then does grace accom-
plish for the sinner, for every sinner? The hypothe-
sis put forth in answer to this question is a plait of
riddles which no ingenuity can disentangle. First,
the sinner is spiritually dead. Then, "a degree of
spiritual life" is imparted to him enabling him to
discharge spiritually living functions. Well then —
one would of course infer — the sinner is now spirit-
ually alive: he is regenerated, he is born again. No,
says the Arminian, only "a portion of spiritual death
is removed from him:"^ he is not yet regenerated.
What then can sufficient grace be but the degree of
spiritual life which is communicated to the sinner?
But this grace — this degree of spiritual life he is to
improve. He may do so or he may refuse to do so.
If he improve it, it follows that as spiritually dead
he improves spiritual life, and what contradiction can
be greater than that? If that is denied, it must be
supposed, that as spiritually alive he improves this
grace — this spiritual life, and then it would follow
that as he may resist it, he would, as spiritually aliv^e
resist spiritual life, which is absurd. What other
supposition can be conceived, unless it be this: that
he acts at the same time as equally dead and alive —
that death and life co-operate in producing saving
results, or in declining to produce them? But that
is so absurd that no intelligent mind W'Ould tolerate
^ Watson.
1
Objection from Divine Goodness, 321
it. Will it be said, that if he improve spiritual life
he does it as spiritually alive, and if he resist it, he
does it as spiritually dead? That would suppose
that, in the case of successful resistance, spiritual
death is too strong for spiritual life and overcomes it.
How then could the vanquished life be said to be
sufficient, or the insufficient grace to be sufficient
grace? The spiritual life imparted is unable to over-
come the spiritual death still existing, and yet it con-
fers sufficient ability upon the sinner. The Armin-
ian hypothesis is susceptible of no other fair con-
struction than this: that the sinner, as spiritually
dead, improves the degree of life given him by grace;
that, as impenitent and unbelieving, he, by the
exercise of his natural will, uses the imparted ability
to repent and believe. Such ability is just no ability
at all; for there is no power that could use it. It is
like giving a crutch to a man lying on his back with
the dead palsy, or like putting a bottle of aqua vit{B
in the coffin with a corpse.
Let us put the case in another form : The Ar-
minian holds that the sinner is spiritually dead and
consequently unable to do anything to save himself.
But a degree of spiritual life is imparted to him to
enable him to embrace salvation offered to him. It
follows that now the sinner is neither wholly dead
nor Wholly alive : he is partly dead and partly alive.
Now, either, first, his dead part uses his living part;/
or, secondly, his living part uses his dead part ; or,
thirdly, his living part uses itself and his dead part
uses itself; or, fourthly, his living part uses both the
living and dead part ; or, fifthly, the living and dead
part co-operate. The first supposition is inconceiv-
322 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
able ; for death cannot use life. The second supposi-
tion violates the Arminian doctrine that it is life
which is to be used, not life which uses death ; and
further, how is it possible for life to use death in per-
forming saving functions? The third supposition
involves the concurrent but contradictory acting of
life and death, neither being dominant, so that the
sinner e\xr remains partly alive and partly dead. No
salvation is reached. The fourth supposition in-
volves the causal and determining influence of the
life imparted by grace, and, therefore, the abandon-
ment of the Arminian and the adoption of the Cal-
vinistic doctrine ; for the whole man would be ruled
by the life-giving grace. The fifth supposition is
impossible ; for it is impossible that life and death
can co-operate to secure salvation.
Let the Arminian account of the unconverted sin-
ner's condition be viewed in every conceivable way,
and it is evident that there is no analogy between it
and that of Adam in innocence. The sufficient grace
or ability of the two cases is entirely different. In
one case, there was total spiritual life, in the other
there is partial spiritual life and partial spiritual
death. They cannot be reduced to unity, nor can
even similarity be predicated of them. Justification
was possible to Adam, for, as a being totally alive, he
had sufficient ability to secure it ; but salvation, ac-
cording to the Arminian supposition, is impossible to
the sinner, for as a being partly dead, he has no suffi-
cient ability to embrace it. It has already been con-
clusively shown that grace, to confer ability upon the
spiritually dead, cannot be anything less than re-
generating grace ; and the bestowal of that upon the
I
Objection from Divine Goodness. 323
sinner, previonsly to his repentance and faith, the
Arniinian denies. An appeal to Adam's ability, in
order to snpport the hypothesis of the snfficient
ability of the unregenerate sinner, cannot avail to
redeem that hypothesis from the charge of making a
merely possible salvation impossible.
Let ns now return for a moment to the argument
employed under the preceding head. It was argued
that God's foreknowledge, as conceded by the Arniin-
ian, that a definite number of human beings wnll be
condemned at the last day, involves the absolute cer-
tainty of their condemnation, and that what God will
do on that day he must have eternally purposed to
do. How, it was asked, can the Arminian show
that this certainty of the destruction of some men is
consistent with the possibility of their salvation?
It was supposed that in his attempt to show this, he
might contend that although the divine foreknowl-
edge created an extrinsic impossibility of their salva-
tion— that is, an impossibility apprehended in the
divine mind, yet there is an intrinsic possibility of
their salvation — that is, a possibility growing out of
their own relations to the scheme of redemption, and
their ability to avail themselves of them. In short,
he might contend that although God foreknows that
some men will be lost, he also foreknows that these
same men anight be saved ; and to fortify that view,
he might appeal to the analogy of the case of Adam,
the certainty of whose fall God foreknew, but the
possibility of whose standing, so far as his intrinsic
ability was concerned, he also foreknew. It has now
been proved that there is no analogy between Adam's
sufficient ability and that which the Arminian
324 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
vainly arrogates for the unregenerate sinner; and
that on the contrary, on the Arminian's own prin-
ciples, the unregenerate sinner is endowed with no
sufficient ability to appropriate a merely possible sal-
vation. Upon those principles, therefore, at the
same time that God foreknows the certainty of some
men's destruction, he also foreknows the intrinsic im-
possibility of their salvation. The Arminian, conse-
quently, has the case of the finally lost to harmonize
with divine goodness, as well as the Calvinist, and is
logically restrained from attacking the Calvinistic
doctrine because of its alleged inconsistency with that
attribute. The charge recoils, indeed, with redoubled
force upon himself, for while the Calvinistic doctrine
provides for the certain salvation of some men, his
doctrine makes the salvation of any man impossible.
A scheme which professes to make the salvation of
every man possible, but really makes the salvation of
any man impossible, is not one which can glory in
being peculiarly consistent with the goodness of God.
The x\rminian impeaches the doctrine of uncondi-
tional election for representing God as worse than the
devil, more false, more cruel, more unjust. ^ No
recourse has been had to declamatory recrimination ;
but it has been proved by cold-blooded argument that
the distinctive principles of Arminianism, in making
the application of redemption to depend upon the
self-determining power of a dead man's will, make
the actual salvation of any sinner a sheer impossibil-
ity. How such a scheme magnifies the goodness of
God can only be conceived by those who are able to
comprehend how a dead man can use the means of
^ Wesley's sermon on Free Grace.
Objection from Divine Wisdom. 325
life. The love of the Father in giving his Son, the
love of the Son in obeying, suffering, dying for the
salvation of sinners, the mission of the eternal Spirit
to apply a salvation purchased by blood, — all this in-
finite wealth of means depends for efficacy upon the
decision of a sinner's will, a decision which, without
regenerating and determining grace, must, in accord-
ance with the law of sin and death, be inevitably
rendered against its employment.
The proposition will no doubt have been regarded
as extraordinary, but it is now repeated as a conclu-
sion established by argument, that a merely possible
salvation such as the Arminian scheme enounces is to
a sinner an impossible salvation. When the argument
has been convicted of inconclusiveness, it may be
time to resort to the weapons of the vanquished —
strong and weighty words.
The objection against the Calvinistic doctrines of
election and reprobation that they are inconsistent
with the goodness of God has now been examined,
and it has been shown, first, that it is inapplicable,
and secondly, that the Arminian is not the man to
render it.
3. OBJECTION FROM DIVINE WISDOM.
The next objection which will be considered is de-
rived from the wisdom of God. It may be stated in
the words of Richard Watson : "The doctrine of the
election to eternal Tife only of a certain determinate
number of men, involving, as it necessarily does, the
doctrine of the absolute and unconditional reproba-
tion of all the rest of mankind, cannot, we may con-
fidently affirm, be reconciled ... to the wisdom of
326 Calviiiisjji and Evangelical Arniinianisni,
God ; for the bringing into being a vast number of
intelligent creatures under a necessity of sinning, and
of being eternally lost, teaches no moral lesson to the
world ; and contradicts all those notions of wisdom
in the ends and processes of government which we
are taught to look for, not only from (sic) natural
reason, but from the Scriptures." ^
After what has been said in exposition of the Cal-
vinistic doctrine, it cannot fail to be observed that
there is here a positive misrepresentation of that doc-
trine ; and that in two respects. In the first place,
when the decree of reprobation is represented as
"absolute and unconditional," it is meant to imply
that it just as efficaciously determines the sin and de-
struction of some men as the decree of election does
the holiness and salvation of others. It has already
been shown that even the Supralapsarians do not
profess to hold such a view, and that it is expressly
denied in the Calvinistic Confessions, and by the
Sublapsarians, who constitute the vast majority of
the Calvinistic body. In the second place, the state-
ment is incorrect that the Calvinistic doctrine main-
tains that God brought into being a vast number of
intelligent creatures under the necessity of sinning
and of being eternally lost. The common teaching
of the Calvinistic Churches, as embodied in their
Confessions and Catechisms, is that Adam might have
stood in innocence and secured justification for him-
self and his posterity, who were represented by him
nnder the covenant of works. And although some
Calvinistic theologians have advocated Necessitarian-
ism, it would be impossible to show that it has been
^ Theo. Ifist., vol. ii., p. 341.
I
Objection from Divine Wisdom. 327
taught in the Calvinistic Symbols. Nor have the
body of Calvinistic divines affirmed the view that, in
the first instance, man was under any necessity of
sinning. The doctrine which, in the foregoing quo-
tation, is pronounced inconsistent with the divine
wisdom is not the Calvinistic doctrine, and therefore
I do not feel called upon to vindicate it from excep-
tions. Leaving the Necessitarian to answer for his
own position, I propose briefly to show, first, that the
Calvinistic doctrine is not inconsistent with the
wisdom of God, and, secondly, that the Arminian
doctrine is.
The wisdom of God is that attribute by which he
selects ends and adopts the fittest and most effectual
means to secure them. Now according to the Cal-
vinistic doctrine, God in dealing with the race of
human sinners proposed to himself these ends: the
glorification of his grace in the salvation of some, and
the glorification of his justice in the punishment of
others. In order to secure the first of these ends, he
determined to elect some of the mass of fallen, cor-
rupt and hell-deserving men to be everlastingly
saved, and in pursuance of that purpose, gave his
Son to obey his violated law in his life and death as
their substitute and so to render perfect satisfaction
to justice for their sins, and then imparts to them his
Spirit to unite them to their federal Head, to deter-
mine them to holy obedience, and to cause them to
persevere to the attainment of heavenly felicity.
What fitter and more effectual means can be imagined
than these to secure the proposed end — namely, the
glorification of divine grace in the salvation of sin-
ners? There is a precise adaptation of the means to
328 Calvinism and Evangelical Arfninianism.
the end, and no possible contingency in regard to the
result. Where is the inconsistency with divine wis-
dom in this procedure? Does it not illustrate tliat
attribute?
In order to secure the second of these ends, to wit,
the glorification of his justice in the punishment of
sinners, God determined to leave some of the fallen,
corrupt and hell -deserving mass under the just sen-
tence of his violated law, and ordained them to con-
tinue under the condemnation which they had mer-
ited by their sin. The question is not now whether
that end were worthy of God. That question has
alreadv been discussed. But assumino^ that he did
propose to himself such an end, it cannot be denied
that the means were exactly suited to secure it. So
far from there being a want of wisdom in tliis pro-
cedure, a clear exemplification of it is furnished.
But let us take Mr. Watson^s conception of the
divine wisdom. The office which he signalizes as
discharged by it is to teach moral lessons to the
world. The operation of the decrees which Calvin-
ists ascribe to God is inconsistent with wisdom, he
contends, because it teaches no moral lesson to the
world. Surely the bestowal of the unmerited and
transcendent blessing of eternal life upon some sin-
ners of the human race, while others are left to per-
ish, is suited to impress upon its recipients a lesson
of gratitude which they will never forget through
the everlasting ages. The determination to inflict
condign punishment upon some members of the guilty
race is adapted to teach the world the dreadful evil of
sin and the fearfulness of falling into the hands of the
living God. Is not the retention of some sinners in
Objeclion from Diviite Wisdom. 329
the liands of vindicatory justice, while others are dis-
charged through the obedience of a substitute, also
fitted to deter all intelligent beings from tampering
with tlie temptation to revolt against the government
of God? If the consistency with w-isdom of any
measures is to be collected from their fitness to im-
part valuable moral lessons, the decrees of election
and reprobation, as represented by Calvinists, must
be pronounced eminently consistent with that attri-
bute.
In the passage which has been cited it is also
declared that the decrees of election and reprobation,
as conceived by Calvinists, would, in their execution,
contradict the ends of a wise government, so far as
they can be ascertained from reason and Scripture.
Let us test the allegation. The ends which it is
usual to ascribe to a wise government are : first, the
vindication of justice ; secondly, the prevention of
crime and the consequent protection of society ; and
thirdly, the reformation of offenders. The execution
of the decree of reprobation upon the inexcusable
violators of the divine law certainly vindicates the
justice of God. It, therefore, is adapted to secure
the first end of a wise government. The execution
of the decrees of election and reprobation tends to the
prevention of sin, — that of election by engendering
and maintaining in its objects the love of holiness
and the hatred of wickedness ; that of reprobation by
infusing the dread of sin into all beholders of its de-
served and terrible punishment. The execution of
these decrees is, consequently, adapted to promote
the second end of a wise government.
It w^ould be folly to assert that the third end —
330 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniiniajiisni,
namely, the reformation of offenders, is alzvays sought
by a wise government. In some cases it is, in others
it is not. The swift execution of a murderer cannot
be regarded as a measure looking to his reformation-,
unless destroying his life may be considered as a
means of his living better; and sending him out of
the world may be contemplated as qualifying him to
discharge his duties in the world. The decree of elec-
tion proposes the reformation of offenders and secures
it, and therefore promotes the third end of a wise gov-
ernment. The decree of reprobation no more con-
templates this end than does the sentence of human
law which adjudges a flagrant criminal to summary
execution. And it deserves to be solemnly consid-
ered that every sin against God deserves the prompt
execution of soul and body. Who among the ortho-
dox would take the ground that the incarceration of
the fallen angels in hell was a reformatory measure?
If, then, God inflict the same doom upon some
human sinners, it is obvious that he could not con-
template their reformation as an end. Enough has
been said to evince the unjustifiableness of the allega-
tion, that the execution of the decrees of election and
reprobation, as conceived by Calvinists, would con-
tradict the ends which a wise government proposes to
attain.
Let us next inquire whether the Axminian concep-
tion of the plan of salvation be not inconsistent with
wisdom. On account of the inexact and confused
phraseology of the iVrminian theology in its statements
concerning the plan of redemption, we are obliged in
order to a thorough discussion of the question in
hand to make two suppositions. Either, it is the
Objection from Divine Wisdom, 331
Anninian doctrine that God proposed as an end the
salvation of the whole race, or it is that he proposed
as an end the salvability of the whole race.
Let ns take the first snpposition — namely, that the
end which God proposed to secnre was the salvation
of the whole race. We are jnstified in making this
snpposition, becanse Arminians constantly and ve-
hemently affirm that Christ died to save all men, and
becanse they denounce any other doctrine as utterly
unscriptnral and as dishonoring the character of the
blessed God. It must be admitted that if the end
proposed to be accomplished had been the salvation
of all men, it would have been one characterized by
infinite wisdom. No objection is now^ urged against
the possible consistency of such an end with the
divine wisdom. But assuming, according to the first
supposition, that such was the end selected, the
question necersarily arises, Are the means, which the
Arminian holds to have been adopted, fitted to secure
its accomplishment? If not, the wisdom of the plan
breaks dowm in the selection of the means. What,
then, are the means which, according to the Armin-
ian statement, were selected to achieve the end?
The atonement of Christ offered for the sins of every
man, the grace of the Holy Ghost imparted to every
man to enable him to avail himself of the merit of
Christ, and the undetermined and self-determining
action of the sinner's will in improving the ability
conferred by grace and embracing the ofifered salva-
tion. Now, according to the Arminian doctrine, the
attainment of the end, to wit, the salvation of all men
is, from the nature of the case, contingent — that is, it
may or may not take place; for, it is conditioned upon
332 Calvinism and Evangelical A^^niinianism,
the undetermined and contingent action of every
man's will. It must, therefore, be granted by the
Arminian himself that there could be, from the very
nature of the means employed, no certainty as to the
attainment of the proposed end. And facts abund-
antly prove this to be true; for all men are not actu-
ally saved. The Arminian is not a Universalist, but
admits this fact — that some men are lost. The ques-
tion is, how can he vindicate the wisdom employed
in the selection of means which fail to accomplish
the proposed end? The end is the salvation of the
race. That fails. Why ? Because the means
adopted are inadequate to secure it. There could
therefore be no wisdom in the selection of the means.
Let us take the second supposition. The Arminian
may contend that he does not represent the end to be
the actual salvation of all men, but their possible sal-
vation— not their salvation, but their salvability. We
are then entitled to say to him: If that be your view,
in the name of consistency, you are required to change
your phraseology. Instead of saying what you do not
mean — namely, that Christ died for the salvation of
all men, say what you do mean — namely, that Christ
died for the salvability of all men. Instead of saying
what you do not mean — that men are saved by grace,
say what you do mean — that men save themselves by
improving grace. Instead of saying what you do not
mean — that men by believing in Christ enjoy salva-
tion in the present life, say what 3^ou do mean — that
men enjoy salvability in the present life, and may en-
joy salvation in the future life. Square your terms
with )'our doctrine, that men may understand pre-
cisely what it is, and may no longer be deceived by
the "imposture of words."
Objection from Divine Wisdom. 333
But let it be supposed that the eud which the Ar-
miniau attributes to God is the possible salvatiou of
all men ; and the doctrine is impeachable because it
ascribes to the div'ine scheme of redemption no ele-
ment of wisdom. There would be no wisdom in the
selection of the end; for a possible salvation is no sal-
vation, can be no salvation. Unless God make the
salvation of the dead certain, they must forever lie
dead. A possible salvation of the dead apart from
their actual salvation by the power of God immedi-
ately and miraculously exerted upon them is an im-
possible salvation. Is the possible salvation of the
spiritually dead an end to be ascribed to divine wis-
dom ? There could be no wisdom in the selection of
the means. There is no wisdom in the adoption of
means to secure an impossible end. Worse than this,
there can be no wisdom in the selection of means
which are themselves impossible to be employed. In
the last resort, the means by which, according to the
Arminian, a possible salvation becomes actual is the
self-determination of a will unregeuerated by the
grace of God — that is to say, the means by which a
dead man is to be. saved from death is the self-deter-
mined exercise of the dead man's will. In short,
there can be no wisdom in the selection of an end im-
possible of attainment, and the adoption of means
impossible of employment. Such is the scheme of
salvability which under the fair name of a scheme of
salvation the Arminian theology eloquently describes
as the fruit of infinite wisdom ! The proof that a
nierel)' possible salvation is an impossible salvation
has, in part, been furnished in the foregoing remarks:
a further presentation of it may be made at a subse-
quent stage of the discussion.
334 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
4. OBJECTION FROM DIVINE VERACITY.
The next objection which requires consideration is,
that the Calvinistic doctrines of election and reproba-
tion are inconsistent with the veracity of God.
This objection is presented in several forms :
First, that these doctrines are inconsistent with
those passages of Scripture which declare God's love
for all mankind, and the consequence of that love, a
universal atonement.
Secondly, that they are inconsistent with the scrip-
tural affirmation that God wills that all men shall be
saved.
Thirdly, that they are inconsistent with the com-
mand of God that all men should repent and believe
the gospel, and with the universal offer of salvation.
The first and the second of these special forms of
the objection will not be considered in this place.
The question of the Extent of the Atonement or the
question. For whom did Christ die? it is usual to
consider under a special head. It constituted one of
the points debated between the Remonstrants and the
defenders of the Synod of Dort. The question of the
will of God touchinor the salvation of all men is coo--
nate to that just noticed, and properly falls to be ex-
amined, in part at least, in connection with it. But
it may here be remiarked that if the doctrine of elec-
tion has, in the preceding part of this discussion, been
proved to be scriptural, it has been also proved that
Christ died for the salvation only of the elect ; and
that God efficaciously wills only their salvation.
These doctrines stand or fall together. Assuming,
then, the doctrine of election and its necessary conse-
Objection fj-oiu Divine Veracity. 335
qiient, particular atonement, the Calvinist is bonnd
to meet the objection that they are inconsistent with
the sincerity of God in commanding all men every-
where to repent and believe the gospel, and in ex-
tending a nniversal offer of salvation. This form of
the objection it is now proposed to examine.
There are two qnestions involved in it which, al-
though related to each other, are sufficiently distinct
to justify their separate consideration.
The first is, ' How can the doctrines of election and
reprobation be'reconciled with the command of God
to all men to repent and believe the gospel ? Is not
God represented as insincere in commanding those to
repent and believe whom he did not elect to be saved
and from whom he withholds his saving grace? In
short, how can the sincerity of God be vindicated in
view of the allegation that he commands those to re-
pent and believe whom he has decreed to reprobate,
and who, he therefore foreknows, cannot obey the
command ? This question tlie Calvinist must face.
But let us clear away irrelevant matter, so that the
precise issue may be distinctly apprehended. The
Arminian puts the difficulty in this way : God, ac-
cording to the Calvinist, foreordained and necessitated
the sin and spiritual inability of men : he gives them
no grace to relieve them of their inability ; and yet
commands them to do what they cannot do, in conse-
quence of his own agency exerted upon them. How,
then, can God's sincerity be vindicated? But this is
not the true state of the question. It would be, if
Calvinism were Necessitarianism ; and how the Ne-
cessitarian can successfully meet the difficulty, I
^ For the second see p. 353.
33^ Calvinism and Evangelical Anninianisni.
confess that I have never been able to see. Bat Cal-
vinism, as it has already been shown, is not Necessi-
tarianism. While it maintains the position that men
in their present condition are spiritually disabled, and,
apart from the regenerating grace of God, are under
a fatal necessity of sinning — not of committing this
or that particular sin' — but of sinning, it does not
hold that, in the first instance, that necessity existed.
On the contrary it teaches that the will of man was
^'neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature
determined to good or evil ;" that while man in in-
nocence was liable to fall on account of the mutability
of his will, he was also able to stand, and might by
complying with the condition of the covenant of
works have secured justification. According to Cal-
vinism, then, God did not either originate or necessi-
tate man's sin and consequent inability. The form
in which the Arminian usually presses the objection
is consequently irrelevant and unjustifiable. The
Calvinist, therefore, is not called upon to meet it. It
is not applicable to him. He is no knight-errant who
gallantly undertakes to fight other people's battles,
but is satisfied with the scope afforded to his valor and
his arms in defending his own position. The objec-
tion which he is fairly enjoined to meet is that which
has been stated : Does he represent the God of truth
as insincere, in commanding those to repent and be-
lieve whom he decreed to reprobate for their own,
unnecessitated sin, and who, he foreknows, cannot
obey the command ?
It is admitted that God commands all men every-
where to repent and believe the gospel, with this
^.This distiuctiou is sigualized by Oweu.
Objection from Divine Veracity. 337
limitation, however: that all men who are com-
manded are those who liave the Word of God. For
how conld men be commanded, if they have no
knowledge of the command? Let ns now endeavor
to understand exactly what the Arminian means by
this objection. Does he mean to take the orround
that whatsoever God commands men to do, he effi-
ciently decreed that they should do? One would
suppose that this is his meaning, from the fact that
he so vehemently contends that God wills the salva-
tion of all men. What else can be meant by this
position, but that God decretively wills the salvation
of all men? If this be his meaning, he is compelled
to hold that God's decretive will is defeated in in-
numerable instances, since he admits the fact that
man}- men refuse to obey the command to repent and
believe. He is, consequently, shut up to the con-
cession that there is a discrepancy between the com-
mand of God and his decretive will, as efficacious,
and is debarred, by consistency, from pressing that
difficulty upon the Calvinist as one peculiar to him.
If he mean by God's will that all men should be
saved, a will that the means and opportunities for
securing salvation should be enjoyed by all men, the
same result follows, for he is forced to admit the fact
that those means and opportunities are not possessed
by all men. This has been proved in the foregoing
remarks. Upon this supposition, also, he is con-
fionted with a want of agreement between the com-
mand and the efficient will of God, and is deterred
from urging his own difficulty upon the Calvinist.
If he mean, that God wills to give ability to all
men to attain salvation, without the knowledge of
338 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
the gospel, lie contradicts his own definite doctrine,
that in order to be saved men mnst believe the gospel
and accept the salvation which it tenders. To say
that the Spirit, by immediate revelation and apart
from the written Word, ordinaril}^ communicates the
knowledge of salvation, is to contravene alike the
testimony of the Scriptures themselves and the facts
of observation. On this supposition, also, it must be
allowed that there would be a want of concurrence
between the command of God and his efficacious will
that all men should be saved ; and again the Ar-
minian is estopped from pressing the objection under
consideration.
If he mean, that the will of God that all men
should be saved is not a decretive and efficacious will,
but a desire . that all men should be saved, as he
admits the fact that all men are not actually saved,
he must also admit a disappointment in myriads of
instances of the divine desire, and a corresponding
diminution of the divine happiness ; and there would
also emerge a want of harmony between the com-
mand of God and his will, in the form of desire, that
all men should be saved. On this supposition, the
difficulty objected against the Calvinistic doctrine
lies with equal weight upon the Arminian.
The difficulty created by any one, or all, of these
suppositions is not removed, if the Arminian say that
in this sense at least God efficaciously willed the
salvation of all men — namely, that he willed by
virtue of Christ's atonement that the disablinof miilt
of Adam's sin should be removed from all men. For,
the question returns, How such a will could be a will
that all men should be saved? Conscious depravity
1
Objection from Divine Veracity. 339
would still remain, with the guilt and curse which it
entails, and unless that depravity and its judicial
consequences are removed from all men by the will
of God, there could not be affirmed to be a will of
God that all men should be saved.
If, finally, the Arminian say, that he means by the
will of God that all men should be saved, only a per-
missive will, what more would he affirm than the
Calvinist? For a will to permit all men to be saved
would amount to no more than this : that God willed
not to prevent the salvation of any man by a positive
divine influence exerted upon him, and that the Cal-
viiiist admits as well as the Arminian.
If in answer to this it be said, that the Calvinist
holds that the judicial curse of God exerts a disabling
influence upon the sinner, and that God willed to
allow that disabling influence to remain upon some
of mankind, the case of conscious sin and the con-
demnation which it deserves confronts the Arminian.
All actual transgressions merit the judicial curse of
God, and the Arminian holds that men commit actual
transgressions, and that "the wrath of God is re-
vealed from heaven against all ungodliness and un-
righteousness of men." Here then is a disabling
curse which must be removed ere men can be saved.
Does God will to remove it from all men as, accord-
ing to the Arminian, he willed to remove the con-
demnation for Adam's sin from all men? If so, all
men are actually delivered both from the curse pro-
nounced upon them for Adam's sin, and that inflicted
upon them for their own conscious sins ; and that
involves the actual salvation of all men — a position
maintained only by the Universalist. The Arminian
340 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
mnst hold, therefore, that God willed to permit the
disabling influence of his judicial curse to remain
upon some men. Consequently, should he maintain
the view that God's will that all men should be
saved is simply a permissive will, he would be in the
same relation to the question of the sincerity of God
in commanding all men to repent as that sustained
by the Calvinist.
It has thus been evinced, that the objection
grounded in the sincerity of God is one which the
Arminian as well as the Calvinist is required to meet.
But let us proceed to a more particular examination
of the objection itself.
There are evidently two fallacious hypotheses upon
which the Arminian founds the objection, in the
special form under treatment. The first is, that
there can be no inconsistency between the decretive
will and the preceptive will of God — between God's
purpose and his command. The second is, that God
cannot sincerely command obedience from those who
are not able to render it — in other words, that iu
every possible case ability is the condition and
measure of duty. Let us consider the first.
It is strenuously contended by the Arminian that it
is necessary to suppose that when God commands
anything to be done, he also decretively wills that it
should be done. Otherwise, an inconsistency is as-
cribed to the divine will — God wills to be done what
he does not will shall be done. A contradiction
emerges. Now, this would be true only in those
cases in which the will of God is spoken of in the
same sense. To say that God decretively wills that
a thing be done and that he does not decretively will
J
Objection from Divine Veracity. 341
that the same thing be done, or that he preceptively
wills to be done what he preceptively wills not to be
done, — that would involve a contradiction. But to
say that God preceptively wills a thing to be done
and that he does not decretively will that it be
done,— that involves no contradiction, for the reason
that the divine will is regarded in different senses.
This the Arminian himself must admit, or maintain
a position inconsistent with his own doctrine as to
the immutability of God, with the plain teachings of
Scripture, and with the most obtrusive facts. He
contends that God commands all men to repent and
believe. Here is God's preceptive will. There can
be no dispute about it. But all men do not repent
and believe. Neither can there be any dispute about
that fact. The question then is. Did God decretively
will that all men should repent and believe? This
must be answered in the affirmative, upon the Ar-
minian ground that there can be no inconsistency
between the preceptive and the decretive will of God.
It must be admitted then that in this matter of the
repentance and faith of all men, the decretive will of
God has failed of execution— he has not accomplished
what he decreed to accomplish. What becomes of
the immutability of God, not to speak of his wisdom
and his power? But the Arminian holds the im-
mutability of God. He is therefore palpably incon-
sistent with himself. He is obliged, if he maintain
the infinite perfections of God, to admit that the pre-
ceptive and the decretive will of God do not coincide
in regard to the repentance and faith of all men.
Will he then, in spite of this necessitated admission,
charge the Calvinist with unwarrantably affirming
342 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisni.
an inconsistency between the command of God that
all men should repent and believe and the absence of
his decree that all should obey that command?
But let us look at the matter in the light of revealed
facts. God, through Moses, commanded Pharaoh to
let his people go. Here was his preceptive will, un-
mistakably delivered, and enforced by tremendous
sanctions. Did God decretively will that the obstinate
monarch should consent to let his people go ? If so,
his decretive will signally failed of accomplishment.
For although Pharaoh under the pressure of judgment
temporarily consented, he ultimately persisted in his
refusal and was destroyed. As that cannot without
blasphemy be affirmed, it must be conceded that in
the case of Pharaoh the command of God was not
concurrent with his decree. Was God insincere,
therefore, in commanding the Egyptian king to re-
lease the Israelites from bondage ?
God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.
Here w^as the preceptive will of God, which the illus-
trious patriarch unhesitatingly prepared to obey. But
the event proved that God had not decretively willed
that Isaac should be sacrificed. Here was another
instance of a want of coincidence between the pre-
ceptive and the decretive will of God. Was God,
then, insincere in commanding Abraham to sacrifice
his son ?
God commanded the Jews to accept Jesus as their
Messiah and to believe in him. Here was his precep-
tive will. Did he also decretively will that all of
them should accept him and believe in him ? Surely
not, else his decree was balked in its execution. iVgain
we have a most striking- instance of the fact that the
Objcclioii from Divine Veracity, 343
command of God does not always tally with his de-
cretive will. Who would take the ground that God
was insincere in commanding all the Jews to accept
Jesus as their IMessiah and believe in him ?
With these scriptural facts the course of God's or-
dinary providence not unfrequently concurs. How
often does he call his people to the performance of
functions which he does not intend that they shall
discharge! A young man, for example, is pressed by
conscientious convictions that it is his duty to preach
the Gospel. He sedulously prepares for the great
office. His preparations completed, the church which
is edified by his ministrations calls him to preach.
The ecclesiastical authorities confirm the call. There
is every evidence which can be furnished by piety,
gifts, and tlie sustaining judgment of his brethren,
that he is called to preach. And yet just as soon as
he steps upon the threshold of the sacred office he re-
ceives the summons of his Master to leave his earthly
work. He dies. In this case God's command and
his decree do not coincide. He calls his servant to
do a work which he did not intend that he should
perform. As in the instance of Abraham, he tests the
spirit of obedience, and stops the actual sacrifice.
Yet who would say that God is insincere in extending
a call to duty which he did not decretively will should
be actually discharged ?
When, therefore, the Calvinist teaches that God
commands all men to repent and believe, but that he
does not decretively will that all men should repent
and believe, he is not liable to the censure that he
charges God with insincerity. He is supported in
this position by the Word of God and the facts of
providence.
344 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisjn.
But the Calvinist contends that he is warranted in
going further, and affirming that not only is it true
that, in certain cases, God does not decretively will
to be done what he commands to be done, but that,
in certain cases also, God decretively wills that what
he commands to be done should not be done. That
was true in Abraham's case. God himself arrested
his performance of the commanded duty. When his
obedient servant was in the act of performing it, he
stopped him by the command, "Lay not thy hand
upon the lad." It is plain that God had decretively
willed that, so far as the consummation of the duty
was concerned, he should not execute his preceptive
will.
Not only does this hold true of the obedience of
God's serv^ants, but also of the disobedience of his en-
emies. God commanded Pharaoh to liberate Israel.
He hardened the heart of the incorrigibly wicked
monarch so that he should not obey the command.
This is the express language of Scripture, and they
who quarrel with it quarrel with God. Not that God
made Pharaoh the wicked sinner that be was. His
wickedness was his own, produced by and chargeable
upon himself God did not insert it into him, nor
did he necessitate its existence. But finding him as
he was, furiously bent on wickedness, he determined
his sinful principle into a special and definite channel,
in order to achieve the redemption of his aflfiicted
people. He withdrew from him his Spirit, left him
to the full scope of his evil passions, and shut him up
to a refusal to comply with the divine command. In
a word, God judicially punished him by continuing
him under the necessity of expressing his own exe-
Objection from Divine Veracity. 345
crable wickedness. The destruction of Israel's ene-
mies and their own glorious liberation were, in tlie
divine purpose, conditioned upon Pharaoh's obsti-
nacy. His obstinate resistance of the precepti\'e will
of God was, therefore, ordained by the decretive will
of God. To deny this is to deny the explicit state-
ments of Scripture.
God, by the testimony of John the Baptist, by voices
speaking from the heavens, and by unimpeachable
miracles, commanded the Jews who were contempor-
ary with Jesus to ''hear him" and to believe on him.
But lie decretively willed that some of them should
be the agents in producing his death. The apostle
Peter in his great sermon on the day of Pentecost
enounced this fact when he said : "Him, being de-
livered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge
of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have
crucified and slain." The apostles, said in a prayer:
"For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus whom
thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate,
with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gath-
ered together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy
counsel determined before to be done." Assuredly
the death of Christ and the form in which it was in-
flicted were pre-determined. Consequently, the means
and agencies involved must likewise have been fore-
ordained. The sinful principle of which the atro-
cious act of the crucifixion was the expression was not
produced by the divine efficiency. God is not the
author of sin. The sinner is himself the author of it.
The Scribes and Pharisees, the priests and rulers, and
the contemporary generation of their countr\nien
were not made the malicious and incorrigible sinners
34^ Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianisni.
they were by the di\ane causality; but being what
they were by virtue of their own election, God deter-
mined to shut them up to the specific expression of
wickedness which resulted in the crucifixion of Christ.
They were not, by the divine decree, obliged to be
sinners or to sin, but they were, by it, obliged to vent
their own wickedness in such a way as to fulfil the
eternal counsel of God touching that event which is
the pivot upon which the whole scheme of redemption
turns. In a word they with wicked hands crucified
and slew the Saviour, but God decretively willed that
they should crucify and slay him. The act w^as alike
forbidden and decreed — commanded not to be done,
and decreed to be done. It is but pntting the same
thing in different w^ords to say that God commanded
all the Jews to believe in Jesus, and decreed that some
of them in consequence of unbelief should slay him.
The bearing of these scriptural facts upon the ques-
tion in hand is obvious and striking. The Arminian
denies that there can be any incompatibility between
the preceptiv'e and the decretive will of God, and de-
nounces the distinction between them, which the Cal-
vinist affirms, as dishonoring to the divine perfections.
Consequently, he holds that as God has expressed his
preceptive will in the form of a command that all
men should repent and believe the gospel, his decre-
tive will must consist with it— that in point of fact
he wills that all men should repent and believe; other-
wise God would be insincere in issuing such a com-
mand. We meet this position by showing from the
indisputable testimony of Scripture that, in the case
of Abraham, of Pharaoh, and of some of the Jews in
the matter of our Lord^s crucifixion, God commanded
Objection from Divine Veracity, 347
to be done wliat he did not decretive! y will should be
done ; and further, that, in each of these cases, he
commanded to be done what he decreed should not be
done. Especially is the instance of the crucifiers of
Christ a pertinent one. The Arminian says that as
God commands all men to repent and believe, he de-
cretively wills that all men should repent and believe.
The Calvinist says that God commands all men to
repent and believe, but that he has decretively willed
to reprobate some men — that is to say, to pass them
by, to withhold from them the saving grace which he
imparts to others, and to shut them up in impenitency
to their final doom. The Scriptures, in the instance
designated, clearly illustrate the same distinction, en-
forced upon a more restricted theatre. God com-
manded all the Jews who were contemporary with
Jesus to repent and believe in him, but he decretively
willed concerning some of them to pass them by, to
withhold from them his saving grace, and to shut
them up in impenitency to their final doom. Does
any one dispute the applicability of this language to
the Jewish rejectors of Christ ? Let him consider the
awful words of the Lord Jesus, as found in the thir-
teenth chapter of Matthew, and especially these, re-
corded in the eleventh chapter of Romans: "Wot
ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias ? how he
maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down
thine altars; and I am left alone and they seek my
life. But what saith the answer of God unto him ?
I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who
have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even
so then at this present time also there is a remnant
348 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
according to the election of grace. And if by grace,
then is it no more of works : otherwise grace is no
more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more
grace : otherwise work is no more work. What then?
Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for ;
but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were
blinded (according as it is written, God hath given
them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not
see, and ears that they should not hear ;) unto this
day. And David saith, Let their table be made a
snare, and a trap, and a stumbling-block, and a rec-
ompence unto them : Let their eyes be darkened,
that they may not see, and bow down their back
alway."
These arguments derived immediately from Scrip-
ture are sufficient to refute the hypothesis of the Ar-
minian that there can be no inconsistency between
the preceptive will and the decretive will of God — -
between the divine command and the divine purpose.
Consequently, the objection against the Calvinistic
doctrines of election and reprobation that they im-
pute insincerity to God, so far as it is grounded in
that hypothesis, is proved to be destitute of scriptural
foundation. No insincerity is ascribed to God when
it is maintained that, although he has decreed to re-
probate some men for their sin, he commands all men
to repent and believe the gospel. Man's duty is one
thing, God's, decree another. The preceptive will of
God is plainly revealed in Scripture as a rule of action
which all men are required to obey. The decretive
will of God, concerning the salvation of this or that
individual, no one has a right to inquire into until he
has complied with the divine command to believe in
Objection from Divine l^eracity. 349
Christ. When he has believed, it is his privilege to
be assured of his election, testified to him by the wit-
ness of the Holy Spirit concurring with that of his
own spirit. The apostle Paul says to the Thessalon-
ian believers: "Knowing, brethren beloved, your
election of God." What Paul knew of them, they
might know of themselves. Writing to the Roman
Christians, he says: "Salute Rufus, chosen (elect) in
the Lord." "The secret of the Lord is with them
that fear him," but, from the nature of the case, it is
incognizable by the ungodly.
The second fallacious hypothesis upon which the
Arminian founds his objection against the Calvinistic
doctrine touching the matter in hand is, that in every
possible case ability is the condition and measure of
obligation, and that, consequently, God could not
sincerely command obedience from those who are not
able to render it. The Calvinist holds that without
regenerating and determining grace no man can obey
the command of God to repent and believe the gospel;
and that God has decreed to withhold that grace from
those who are not included in his electing purpose.
As, therefore, they are not able to repent and believe,
the Calvinist represents God as insincere in command-
ing them to repent and believe.
The hypothesis that in every possible case ability
conditions and measures duty has been considered in
a preceding part of this discussion. There it was ad-
mitted that, in the first instance, in which the require-
ments of law are laid upon its subject, his ability to
obey is pre-supposed. It was conceded that the first
man and the race represented by him were possessed
of original ability to obey the divine law. But it
350 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisrn.
was shown that when the original ability with which
the subject of government is endowed has by wilful
and unnecessitated sin been sacrificed, a penal in-
ability supervenes, which cannot possibly discharge
him from the oblio^ation to render obedience to the
divine requirements. So when Adam and the race in
him by their own inexcusable act forfeited their con-
} created ability to obey God, the penal inability which
I followed as a judicial consequence could not release
them from the duty to obey the divine commands.
It may be affirmed as an indubitable principle, that
God's right to command and man's duty to obey can-
not be impaired by sin and the inability which it
necessarily entails upon its perpetrators. The wilful
transgressor of the divine law continues to be subject
to_.tlie obligation which originally rested upon him.
Although disabled by guilt and corruption, he is
bound to perform the duties to which he was compe-
tent in innocence. The fallen angels are not released
from the obligation to obey God by the fact of their
inability to obey him. They are as much bound to
render obedience to him in hell, as they originally
were in heaven. So is it with men. The only ques-
tion concerning which any doubt is possible is in re-
gard to the justice of their implication in the sin of
Adam and its penal results. That question has been
already discussed. If the justice of that procedure be
admitted, it must be granted that God's right to com-
mand obedience from men and their duty to render it
are not qualified by the fact of their penal inability.
Consequently, God without any breach of sincerity
may command those to repent and believe the gospel
I whose guilt and depravity disable them for complying
; with the requirement.
Objection fr 0711 Divine Veracity. 351
It will not be denied that repentance is a duty
which nature itself requires of the sinner. It would
be a duty, although there were no specific command
which imposed it. It cannot, therefore, be disputed
that God may rightfully and sincerely exact by special
command the performance of a duty which is bound
iipon the sinner by his natural conscience. Nor does
it aifect the case to say that the sinner cannot comply
with this requirement. It is his duty to repair the
wrong which he has done, notwithstanding the fact
that he has disabled himself for making the repara-
tion. Repentance is, in one sense, clearly a legal
duty; and the sinner's incapacity to perform it cannot
release him from the obligation to discharge it, nor
impair God's right to impose it by special command.
But while this may be acknowledged, it may be
urged that the duty to believe in Christ for salvation
stands on a different foot — that faith is not required
by a legal, but by an evangelical, command. Hence
it may be argued that as faith, unlike repentance,
stands related not to the authority of law, but to the
provisions of a redemptive scheme which is the free
product of God's gracious will, it cannot with sin-
cerity be demanded of the sinner, unless at the same
time sufficient ability to exercise it be communicated
to him. In a w^ord, faith may be said to lie outside |
of that class of legal duties which no self-contracted ]
disability can excuse men from performing. As it is
not obedience to law, but to the gospel of God's grace,
the right to demand it supposes the supernatural im-
partation of ability to yield it. But this, it may be
replied, is an erroneous statement of the case. It is
cheerfully conceded that faith, although characterized
352 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisjn.
as obedience, is not legal righteousness. Its matter is
not the works of the law, nor is its end justification on
the o^round of personal obedience. It obeys by not
obeying. That is to say, the very essence of the obe-
dience which it involves is the renunciation of legal
righteousness as a complement of personal works, and
reliance upon the righteousness of another, even the
righteousness of Christ as the substitute of the guilty.
But while this is true, faith is nevertheless obedience
to law. The gospel is not the product of law, but of
grace. But the gospel as the fruit of grace being in
existence, God as Lawgiver and Ruler commands
men to receive it and to believe in the Saviour whom
it reveals. If the question be asked. Why should
men believe in Christ? with reference to the end con-
templated, the answer is, In order to their being
freely justified by grace on the ground of the vicarious
obedience of Christ. If the same question be asked,
with reference to the ground of the obligation to be- -
lieve in Christ, the answer is, Because God has com-
manded them to do it. The authoritative will of God
or, in other words, his law, expressed in the form of
a specific command requiring faith in Christ, obliges
those who hear the gospel to exercise that faith. He,
therefore, who believes, obeys God's law as well as
trusts in his mercy, and he who refuses to believe is
alike a violator of the divine law and a despiser of
divine grace.
If this view be correct — and it is difficult to per-
ceive how it can be gainsaid — the principle that a
self-originated inability to obey the law cannot impair
God's right to command obedience, nor man's duty
to render it, applies as well to faith in Christ as to
Objection from Divine Veracity, 353
those purely legal works which are required by
natural religion. Consequently no insincerity can be
imputed to God in connnanding those to believe in
Christ who have no power to comply with the re-
quirement.
The mode in which the Arminian attempts to avoid
the difficulty which he urges against the Calviuist is
utterly unsatisfactory. For, in the first place, if he
take the extraordinary ground that the command to
repent and believe is imposed literally upon all men
— that is, upon every individual of the race — he can-
not prove that such an ability to obey it as he con-
tends for is imparted to the millions of the strictly
heathen world. In the second place, it has already
been shown by conclusive arguments, and, if God
permit, may still furtlier be evinced, that the ability
which he claims for those who live under the gospel
scheme is wholly insufficient to enable the unre-
generate sinner to repent and believe in Christ. He
professes to meet the difficulty growing out of the
divine sincerity, but in reality fails to remove it. It
presses upon his system as well as upon the Calvin-
istic.
Let us now pass on to consider the second form of
this objection — namely, that, upon the Calvinistic
scheme, the universal offer of salvation through the
invitations of the gospel is inconsistent with the
sincerity of God. The difficulty is thus put by
Richard Watson ; "Equally impossible is it to recon-
cile this notion to the sincerity of God in offering
salvation to all who hear the gospel, of whom this
scheme supposes the majority, or at least great num-
bers, to be among the reprobate. The gospel, as we
23
354 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
have seen, is commanded to be preached to 'every
creature;' which publication of 'good news to every
creature' is an offer of salvation 'to every creature,'
accompanied with earnest invitations to embrace it,
and admonitory comminations lest any should neglect
and despise it. But does it not involve a serious
reflection upon the truth and sincerity of God which
men ought to shudder at, to assume, at the very time
the gospel is thus preached, that no part of this good
news was ever designed to benefit the majority, or
any great part, of those to whom it is addressed? that
they to whom the love of God in Christ is proclaimed
were never loved by God? that he has decreed' that
many to whom he offers salvation, and whom he in-
vites to receive it, shall never be saved? and that he
will consider their sins aggravated by rejecting that
which they never could receive, and which he never
designed them to receive?"^
There are two chief difficulties with which, to my
jnind, the Calvinistic scheme has to cope. The first
lis that which attends the attempt to reconcile with
the justice and goodness of God the implication of all
men in the sin of Adam and its judicial results. This
difficulty has already been carefully considered, and
it has been shown that it bears more heavily upon the
Arminian than upon the Calvinistic system. But
admitting the justice and benevolence of the constitu-
tion under which the first man and his posterity were
collected into unity upon the principle of legal repre-
sentation, and that in this way the guilt and spiritual
inability of the race were self-contracted and justly
imputable, the Calvinist is able to justify the decrees
' Theo. Institutes^ vol. ii., p. 343.
Objection from Divine Veracity, 355
of unconditional election and of reprobation, and to/
affirm God's right to command and man's obligation/
to obey, notwithstanding the fact that men are in'
themselves unable to render the required obedience.
The second difficulty — the gravity of which it
would be idle to deny — is that which grows out of
tlie necessity of adjusting to our conceptions of God's
sincerity the universal offer of the gospel : the diffi-
culty which it is now proposed to examine. The
pinch of it is in this circumstance : that God not only •
commands men to repent and believe as a duty which
they owe to him, but invites and urges them to
accept salvation as a benefit which he tenders them.
They are not only addressed as the subjects of gov-
ernment, but as the objects of mercy. That God ^
should offer th^m the blessings of salvation, without
having designed those blessings for all and without ,
conferring upon all the ability to accept them, seems 1
to involve a mockery of human wretchedness, and a
deviation from sincerity.
The doctrine upon this point of the Calvinistic
system is thus set forth by the Synod of Dort: "This
death of the Son of God is a single and most perfect
sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and
price, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the
whole world." ^ "The promise of the gospel is, that
whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not
perish, but have eternal life : which promise ought
to be announced and proposed promiscuously and in-
discriminately to all nations and men to whom God,
in his good pleasure, hath sent the gospel, with the
command to repent and believe.'" "But because
1 Ch. ii. Art. 3. ' Ch. ii. Art. 5.
356 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor
believe in Christ, bnt perish in unbelief; this doth
not arise from defect or insufficiency of the sacrifice
offered by Christ upon the cross, but from their own
fault." ^ "Sincerely and most truly God shows in
his Word what is pleasing to him, namely, that they
wdio are called should come to him ; and he sincerely
promises to all wdio come to him, and believe, the
peace of their souls and eternal life." ^
The following are the words of the Westminster
Confession of Faith : "Others, not elected, although
they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and
may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet
they never truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot
be saved."'' The Larger Catechism thus puts the
case: "All the elect, and they only, are effectually
called ; although others may be, and often are, out-
wardly called by the ministry of the Word, and have
some common operations of the Spirit, who, for their
wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to
them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never
truly come to Jesus Christ." *
It deserves to be noticed, that the sufficiency of the
atonement to ground the salvation of all men is fully
admitted. The limitation which the Calviuist affirms
is not upon the intrinsic value of the atonement, but
in relation to the design of God touching the persons
for whom it was to be offered as a ransom-price, and
its application to them in order to make their salva-
tion certain. The infinite dignity of the person of
Christ, and the connection of his divine nature with
^ Ch. ii. Art. 6. 2 ^^^^ ^ji ^rt 9.
3 Ch. X. Sec. iv. * Oues. 68.
Objection from Divine Veracity. 357
his hnnian, imparted infinite worth to liis whole obe-
dience in life and in death. In a word, the atoning
merit of Christ was infinite. The following remarks
of the great John Owen, as strict a Calvinist as ever
lived, may be regarded as representative: "The first
thing that we shall lay dow^n is concerning the dig-
nity, worth, precionsness, and infinite vahie of the
blood and death of Jesns Christ. The maintaining
and declaring of this is donbtless especially to be con-
sidered; and every opinion that doth bnt seemingly
clash against it is exceedingly prejudiced, at least de-
servedly suspected, yea, presently to be rejected by
Christians, if upon search it be found to do so really
and indeed, as that which is injurious and derogatory
to the merit and honor of Jesus Christ. The Scrip-
ture, also, to this purpose is exceeding full and fre-
quent in setting forth the excellency and dignity of
his death and sacrifice, calling his blood, by reason of
the unity of his person, 'God's own blood,' Acts xx.
28 ; exalting it infinitely above all other sacrifices, as
havirig for its principle ' the eternal Spirit,' and being
itself 'without spot,' Heb. ix. 14; transcendently
more precious than silver, or gold, or corruptible
things, I Pet. i. 18; able to give justification from all
things, from which by the law men could not be jus-
tified. Acts xiii. 28. Now, such as was the sacrifice
and offering of Christ in itself, such was it intended
by his Father it should be. It was, then, the purpose ,
and intention of God that his Son should oflTer a sac- ^
rifice of infinite worth, value and dignity, sufficient \
in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, if it
had pleased the Lord to employ it to that purpose ;
yea, and of other worlds also, if the Lord should
358 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
freely make them, and would redeem them. Suffi-
cient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the
i redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation
j of all the sins of all, and every man in the world.
This sufficiency of his sacrifice hath a twofold rise :
First, the dignity of the person that did offer and was
offered ; Secondly, the greatness of the pain he en-
dured, by which he was able to bear, and did undergo,
the whole curse of the law and wrath of God due to
sin. And this sets ont the innate^ real^ trne worth
and value of the blood-shedding of Jesus Christ. This
is its own true internal perfection and sufficiency.
That it should be applied unto any, made a price for
them, and become beneficial to them, according to
the worth that is in it, is external to it, doth not arise
from it, but merely depends upon the intention and
will of God. It w\as in itself of infinite value and
sufficiency to have beeii made a price to have bought
and purchased every man in the world. That it did
formally become a price for any is solely to be ascribed
to the purpose of God, intending their purchase and
redemption by it. The intention of the offerer and
accepter that it should be for siich^ some or any^ is
that which gives the formality of a price unto it ; this
is external. But the value and fitness of it to be made
a price ariseth from its own internal sufficiency." ^
The views so strongly expressed by the illustrious
Puritan have not been modified by the utterances of
more recent theologians. They are fully maintained
by such men as Cunningham, Hodge and Thornwell.
The truth is that the intrinsic sufficiency of the atone-
ment cannot be exaggerated. The obedience of
^ WorliSy Goold's Kd., vol. x, pp. 295, 296.
Objection from Divine Veracity. 359
Christ was exhaustive of the requirements of the di-
vine law, preceptive and penal. It was, consequently,
susceptible, in itself considered, of limitless applica-
tion, in all cases, at least, in which the principle of
federal representation was capable of being employed.
When, therefore, the terms limited atoiienient, definite^]
atonement, particular atonement, are used, it must be /
observed that they have no reference to the intrinsic
value of Christ's satisfaction, but relate entirely to.
the sovereign purpose of God.
It follows from this view that, as the atonement of
Christ was, in itself, sufficient, had God so pleased, to
ground the salvation of all men, it is sufficient to
oround the universal offer of salvation. Men are in-
vited to stand on a platform which is broad enough
to hold them all, to rest upon a foundation which is
strong enough to support them all, to partake of pro-
visions which are abundant enough to supply them
all. When, therefore, God invites all men to seek
salvation in Christ, he is not insincere in offering them
a platform too narrow to hold them, a foundation too
weak to sustain them, provisions too meagre to supply
them. Were they all to accept the invitation, they
would all be saved. So much for the intrinsic suf-
ficiency of the remedy for human sin and misery.
So far the Calvinist is not chargeable with represent-
ing God as insincere in the matter of the gospel offer.
It will be urged, however, that notwithstanding his
admission of the absence of limitation, as to the in-
trinsic sufficiency of the atonement, the difficulty re-
mains in view of his doctrine that there is limitation,
as to its extrinsic design and application. It was not
rendered for all, it is not intended to be effectually
360 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
applied to all ; it cannot, therefore, be sincerely of-
fered to all as a remedy for the evils under which
they suffer.
In order that the precise nature of the gospel offer
should be apprehended, let us collect some of the
prominent passages of Scripture in which it is ex-
pressed. *'Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to
the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy
and eat ; yea, come buy wine and milk without money
and without price.'^* "And he said unto them. Go
ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be
saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned. '^^
**Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy
laden, and I will give you rest.'^* "In the last day,
that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, say-
ing, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and
drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture
hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living
water.^'* "Whosoever shall call on the name of the
Lord shall be saved. "^ "Let him that is athirst
come ; and whosoever will, let him take the water of
life freely.'^"
In these scriptural statements of the gospel offer, no
man is invited to believe that Clirist died for him in
particular. Every man is invited to believe in Christ
in order to his being saved. The plain meaning of
the offer is, Believe in Christ and you shall be saved :
you are a sinner ; Christ died to save sinners ; if you
believe in him as a Saviour, you shall be saved. If
^ Isa. Iv. I, *Mark xvi, 15, 16.
*Matt. xi. 28. *John vii. 37, 38.
*Rom. X. 13. 'Rev. xxii. 17.
I
Objection from Divine Veracity. 361
the Calvinist representing the vScriptures as teaching
that Christ died to save the elect, should also repre-
sent God as inviting every man to believe that Christ
died for him in particular, he would be justly charge-
a])le wi'h imputing insincerity to the divine Being.*
But he is not guilty of this inconsistency. He regards
the offer as consisting of a condition and a promise
suspended upon its discharge. The condition is
faith ; the promise is salvation. The terms simply
are : if you believe in Christ as a Saviour you shall
be saved ; and you are invited so to believe. Per-
form the condition, and the promised salvation is
yours. The preachers of the gospel have no com-
mission to proclaim to every man that Christ died to
save him, and that he ought to believe that fact.
That would be to exhort men to believe that they are
saved, before they exercise faith in Christ. For
surely to believe the proposition, Christ died for thee,
and to believe in Christ as a personal Saviour, are
very different things. The Calvinist, therefore, does
not blasphemously ascribe a want of veracity to God
by representing him as teaching, in the doctrinal
statements of his Word, that Christ did not die for
every man, and as declaring in the gospel offer that
Christ did die for every man. He holds that, in the
gospel offer, God simply announces the condition
upon which men may be saved and indiscriminately
invites all to fulfil it.
This being the state of the case, I remark that the
gospel offer gives to every man who hears it a divine
^This argument against the Calvinist is styled the Remon-
strants' Achilles ; but it does about as much harm to the Calvinist
as the Greek hero while sulking in his tent to the Trojan.
362 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
warrant to believe in Christ and be saved. So far as
God's assurance is concerned, he has a right to believe
and be saved, if he will. The terms are, Whosoever
will, let him take the water of life freely. Where is the
insincerity of such an offer? It could only be evinced
by showing that God is the author of the sinner's will
not to believe and be saved. But it has been already
sufficiently manifested that no Calvinist holds that
God is the cause of the sinner's unbelief The sinner
himself is the cause of it. If it be said, still God
knows when he gives the warrant to all to believe
and be saved, that there are some who are not able to
avail themselves of it ; when he furnishes the right,
that there are some who cannot employ it ; the
answer is, that it may please him, for wise and holy
purposes, by extending the offer of salvation to such
men, to test their unbelief, and so to expose their
perverse wickedness and vindicate his justice in their
condemnation. Who are we, that we should venture
to set bounds to the procedures of infinite wisdom,
justice and holiness? Why may we not conceive
that God is as righteous in conveying to men the free
offer of salvation in order to evince to themselves and
to the universe their wickedness in disbelieving the
gospel, as in imposing upon men his commands in
order to illustrate their wickedness in disobeying his
law? Certainly, if sinners spontaneously reject the
warrant and the right which God gives them to be-
lieve and be saved, they are left without excuse and
will be speechless in the great day of accounts. And
he would take bold ground who would hold that God
has no right to place sinners in such circumstances,
and in such relations to himself, as to manifest the
inexcusableness of their wickedness.
i
Objcctioi from Divine Veracity. 363
In the Epistle to the Romans, the inspired apostle
clearly teaches that the light of nature, while insuffi-
cient to ground the knowledge of salvation, is suffi-
cient to render men without excuse for their wicked
apostasy from God. ''Because that which may be
known of God is manifest in them ; for God hath
shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him
from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead ; so that they are without
excuse."^ To say that Paul meant that the Gentiles
might have been justified by obeying this light of
natural religion is to reduce his wdiole argument to
contempt. Their relation to the instructions of na-
ture did not make their justification possible, but
proved their condemnation to be just. It might be
asked, where is God's sincerity in furnishing light to
those who, he knows, cannot avail themselves of it
in consequence of sin ? To such a questioner it
might be thundered, Who art thou that repliest
against God?
The same line of remark applies to the relation of
the moral law to those who have not the gospel.
When God, by the requirements and admonitions of
conscience, illuminated and re-enforced by the com-
mon operations of his Spirit, convinces them of the
duty and the necessity resting upon them to obey it,
he cannot intend by these means to assure them of
the hope of salvation on the ground of a legal right-
eousness. He knows that by the deeds of the law
they cannot be justified. To what end, then, are
these instrumentalities employed, if not to leave the
^ Ch. i. 19, 20.
364 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
wicked transgressors of the law without excuse, and
to vindicate the divine justice in their condemnation?
*'For when the Gentiles, which have not the law
[that is, the law as written in the Scriptures] do by
nature the things contained in the law, these having
not the law are a law unto themselves : which shew
the work of the law written in their hearts, their con-
science also bearing witness, and their thoughts the
meanwhile accusing, or else excusing, one another."
And of those who, having not the written law, violate
this natural law embodied in the conscience, it is ex-
pressly declared that they shall perish. "As many
as have sinned without law shall perish without law."
Is God insincere in addressing the instructions, expos-
tulations and warnings of the law to those who can-
not obey it in their natural strength, and to whom he
has communicated no knowledge of that redemptive
scheme through the provisions of which alone they
can escape condemnation, and present to him accept-
able obedience?
Is God insincere in pressing the demands of his law
upon any man, unevangelized or evangelized, al-
though he knows that the result will be the excite-
ment of contradictoriness and opposition instead of
obedience to those requirements, and although he
knows that that result cannot be avoided except in
consequence of the impartation of his saving grace?
These considerations go to show that God, in in-
numerable instances, pours the light of nature and of
the moral law upon ungodly men for the purpose of
convicting them of sin and of rendering them inex-
cusable. And, if he is pleased to adopt this course
towards the despisers of his law, why should one be
Objection from Divine Veracity. 365
censured for attributing insincerity to him in pursuing
a similar course towards the despisers of his grace?
In neither case is he^bound to restore that ability to
obey him which men have forfeited by their own sin;
and if it be one of the ends of that moral government
which he is now conducting to furnish a thorough-
going and exhaustive exposition of the desperate evil
of sin, one, basing his judgment upon merely rational
grounds, might without rashness conclude that such
an end would be most effectually compassed by per-
mitting the wicked to exhibit malignant enmity to
his gospel as well as to his law. That could only be
done by bringing them into contact with the gospel
offer. If they reject that offer, made to every man
who is willing to receive it, the native opposition of
their hearts to God is most clearly brought to the
surface and exposed. To the contemners of the rich
and unmerited blessings freely and graciously offered
in the gospel, God may righteously utter the awful
words: '^Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and per-
ish." It is very certain that God could, if he
pleased, constrain every man who hears the gospel
offer to accept it. The fact that he does not, what-
ever other inferences it may warrant, legitimates
this : that it is his purpose to uncover and bring into
light the malignant and inexcusable character of sin.
Unbelief in Christ is the climax of wickedness. In
the great day, every mouth will be stopped ; but
especially will they be struck dumb who have de-
spised alike the grace of the gospel, and the justice
of the law.
If, therefore, God gives to every man who hears
the gospel a warrant and right to embrace the salva-
366 Calvinism and Evangelical Amninianisni.
tion it offers, he is sincere in extending the offer to
all, notwithstanding the fact that he does not confer
upon all the grace which effectuates its reception.
Those who reject it will not be able to excuse them-
selves by the plea of God's insincerity.
It deserves also to be noticed, as some divines have
shown, that faith is required, on grounds of justice, as
the first duty of the sinner in order that he make
reparation for the injury done to the divine veracity
in the first instance of man's transgression. God dis-
tinctly testified to man in innocence, "In the day
thou eatest thereof" (that is, of the fruit of the tree
of knowledge of good and evil) "thou shalt surely
die." That divine testimony the Devil as distinctly
denied. Man believed the Devil and disbelieved God.
The divine word was discredited by unbelief On the
supposition, therefore, that man is to be restored to
the favor of God, it is righteous, it is meet and proper,
that a naked faith in the simple testimony of God
should be exacted from him as the first step to his
recovery. The requirement of faith from the sinner
is, consequently, not merely a measure of mercy to
him, but of justice to God. The atonement of Christ,
proposed to the sinner's acceptance as the means of
his reconciliation to God, is the free product of grace,
and it is exuberant grace that, in the first instance,
nothing but faith in the provision of redemption
should be demanded of the sinner; but there is a rea-
son for the exaction of faith in the divine testimony
to this plan of recovery, which is deeply seated in
justice and law. The salvation of the guilty springs
from the free and unmerited mercy of God, but it is
effected in such a way, even in regard to its experi-
Objection from Divine Veracity. 367
mental application, as to consist with the divine per-
fections of justice and truth, and to honor, vindicate
and establish the principles of God's moral govern-
ment. The Fall began in unbelief, and the sinner's
restoration fitly begins with faith. The insult of- 1
fered to the divine word must be obliterated by a 1
simple and unquestioning reliance upon it. From
God's side, the requirement of faith on the part of the
sinner in order to his salvation is a demand of justice,
and in that aspect of it may as fairly be laid upon the
spiritually disabled sinner as any precept to obey the
moral law. In this view of the case, it is clear, that
it no more involves a departure from sincerity for
God to require faith in Christ from the sinner because
he cannot, in his own strength, exercise it, than for
God to demand obedience to his law from the sinner,
because he cannot, in his own strength, perform it.
God sincerely requires obedience to his law from the\
sinner, althouo:h he knows that without his efficacious
grace that obedience cannot be rendered, and although/
he has not purposed to impart that grace to determinel
him to its performance. In the same manner, Godf
sincerely requires from the sinner faith in the gospel, i
although he knows that without his efficacious grace!
he cannot exercise it, and although he has not pur-/
posed to bestow that grace to determine him to its
exercise.
Men argue as if the exhortation to the sinner to
believe in Christ were simply an invitation to him to
partake of blessings freely tendered by mercy. TJiat
it certainly is, but only that it certainly is not. It is
forgotten that it imposes an obligation to the dis-
charge of an imperative duty. The whole race lies
368 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
under the fearful guilt of having believed the Devil
and given God the lie. Those who live under the
gospel are bound to wipe out this foul dishonor done
to the divine veracity. The Calvinist could only be
convicted of representing God as insincere in requir-
ing this reparation to his injured honor, by its being
shown to be his doctrine that God himself influenced
men to prefer the testimony of Satan to his own; and
that the Calvinist denies.
Let it be borne in mind, also, that while, as we have
seen, God, in extending the offer of the gospel to all
men, furnishes an ample warrant to all to believe in
Christ and to be saved, he is not bound by any of his
perfections to give to all the disposition to avail
tliemselves of the warrant. They have no claim upon
him. They brought themselves into their condition
of sin and inability, and, consequently, they can have
no ground for complaining against God for not re-
moving their indisposition to comply with his com-
mand and invitation to believe in Christ.
But while it is true that God is not bound to give
to all who hear the gospel a disposition to accept its
invitations, it is also true that he debars no man from
availing himself of them and receiving salvation
through Christ. So far as he is concerned, all legal
obstacles have been removed which barred the access
of sinners to his pardoning mercy. The road has
been opened to his favor, by means of the finished
work of an atoning Saviour. All who will to come
may come. No one who comes is thrust back. The
only barriers between sinners and salvation are those I
which are raised by themselves. Go:l erects none.
His decree, executed by his efficacious grace, con
J
Objection from Divine Veracity. 369
strains some to come; but his decree prevents none
from coming. He decrees to condemn men for not
coming, not to debar them from coming. He is
therfore sincere in opening the door of mercy to all
who please to enter it. ^
It must further be observed that God exercises nov
positive influence upon the minds of any sinners toj
deter them from coming to Christ for salvation. He'
creates no indisposition in them to come. If he did,
there would be some color of truth in the charge that
he deals insincerely with them in making the offer of
salvation. It is common to represent the Calvinist as
holding that God chains the sinner to a stake, and
then invites him to come to provisions which are
placed beyond his reach. The Calvinist teaches no
such doctrine. He contends that the sinner chains
himself, and that he prefers his chains to the provis-
ions of redemption which are tendered him. He
forges his own chain and then hugs it. The true
doctrine is that the bread and the water of life are of-
fered to all. None, by nature, hunger for the bread ;
none thirst for the water. To some God pleases to
impart the hunger and the thirst which impel them
to come and partake. Others he leaves under the in-
fluence of a distaste for these provisions of salva-
tion— a distaste not implanted by him, but engendered
by their own voluntary sin. He infuses into none a
disrelish for the bread and w^ater of life. If they de-
sired to partake of them they might ; for God invites
them, and therefore authorizes them, to come and en-
joy them. Is God insincere in this procedure because
they exclude themselves from these blessings? It is
shifting the ground of the objection to say, that God
24
370 Calvinis7?i and Evangelical Arminiamsm.
knows, when lie extends the invitation, that they are,
without his grace, unable to accept it. That diffi-
culty has already been met. What is now insisted
upon is, that God does not infuse the inability. It is
self-engendered. In the parable of the Great Supper
our Lord illustrates the invitation which God extends
to all who hear the gospel to come and partake of
its saving provisions. All who were invited to the
Supper refused to come. The IMaster of the feast
constrained some to come. Did this discrimination
prove him insincere in inviting the others? Certainly
not. Their own unwillingness was the cause of their
refusal. He could only have been insincere on the
supposition that he so influenced them as to render
them unwilling. In like manner, the refusal of sin-
= ners to accept the gospel offer is caused by their own
I unwillingness ; nor can God be charged with insin-
1 cerity, except upon the supposition that their unwil-
lingness is produced by his agency. That supposition
forms no part of the Calvinistic doctrine. Any state-
ment to the contrary is a misrepresentation.
But it will be urged : Where, after all, is the sin-
cerity of invitations addressed to the dead; of light-
ing up a charnel-house as a banqueting hall, spreading
in it a feast of viands, and exhorting the mouldering
corpses to rise and partake of the sumptuous repast ?
Unless life be infused into them it is a grim and
solemn mockery to exhort them to attempt the func-
tions of the living. Besides the answer which has
already been furnished to this objection, the following
considerations are submitted :
First, sinners are not in such a sense dead as to be
wholly beyond the reach of the gospel offer. The
I
Objection from Divine Veracity. 371
effect of the fall was the total destruction of spiritual
life. That was totally eliminated from every faculty
of the soul. Holiness was not an essential element,
but a separable quality, of man's original constitution.
It is a sufficient proof of that position that all evan-
gelical theologians admit the possibility of its restora-
tion after having been lost. The faculties which
were essential to the very make and constitution of
man survived the disaster of the fall ; otherwise his
being would have been extinguished. Although,
therefore, the principle of spiritual life no longer
exists until restored by supernatural grace, the intel-
lect, the feelings, the will, considered as to its spon-
taneity at least, and the conscience as a moral faculty,
still continue their functions in the natural sphere.
In contact with these powers God brings the instruc-
tions, invitations and threatenings of the gospel.
The gospel does not speak to stocks and stones ; it
addresses beings who are intelligent, emotional, vol-
untary and moral. They are capable of apprehending
its sTatement that they are spiritually dead, and its
gracious offer to them of the boon of everlasting life.
They can understand the proposition that God has
through Christ provided redemption for sinners, and
that they are freely invited to accept it. They are
susceptible of some feeling of desire to obtain it, and
of some sense of obligation to seek it.
Secondly, with the operation of these natural
faculties in the moral sphere the Holy Spirit concurs,
in the discharge of what has been called his law-work.
He illuminates the understanding, stimulates the
affections, presses upon the conscience the sanctions
of the moral law, and directs the attention of the
372 Calvinism and Evangelical Armijtianism.
sinner to the provisions of redeeming- mercy which
are proposed to his acceptance in the gospel.
Thirdly, is there anything which the unconverted
sinner can will to do? This is an important ques-
tion. It is very certain that he can do nothing in the
spiritural sphere, for the reason that he is spiritually
dead. He cannot convert himself, for how can a dead
man restore himself to life? He cannot repent, he
cannot believe in Christ, for repentance and faith sup-
pose the possession of spiritual life. This spiritual
inability is itself sin, and as has been already shown
cannot be held to absolve the sinner from the obliofa-
tion to obey God's requirements either purely legal or
evangelical, unless the preposterous ground is assumed
that sin can excuse sin. The spiritual inability of the
sinner is no reason why God may not consistently
either with justice or goodness or veracity command
and invite him to repent and believe. The gravity of
the distinction between original and penal inability
can scarcely be overestimated, although it is one
which is but too seldom emphasized. It was main-
tained both by Augustin and Calvin. The latter
says: "For since he [Augustin] had said 'that no
ground of blameworthiness could be discovered when
nature or necessity governs' he cautions us that this
does not hold except in regard to a nature sound
and in its integrity; that men are not subject to
necessity but as the first man contracted it for tliem
by his voluntary fault. *To us,' says he, 'nature is
made a punishment, and what was the just punish-
ment of the first man is nature to us. Since, there-
fore, necessity is the punishment of sin, the sins
which thence arise are justly censured, and the blame
Objection from Divine Veracity. 373
of them is deservedly imputed to men, because the
origin is voluntary.' " '
Dr. Thornwell enforces the distinction in these
impressive words: "We must distinguish between
inability as original and inability as penal. Moral
power is nothing more nor less than holy habitudes
and dispositions ; it is the perception of the beauty,
and the response of the heart to the excellence and
glory, of God, and the consequent subjection of the
will to the law of holy love. Spiritual perception,
spiritual delight, spiritual choice, these and these
alone constitute ability to good. Now, if we could
conceive that God had made a creature destitute of
these habits, if we could conceive that he came from
the hands of the Creator in the same moral condition
in which our race is now born, it is impossible to
vindicate the obligation of such a creature to holiness
upon any principle of justice. It is idle to say that
his inability is but the intensity of his sin, and the
more helpless the more wicked. His inability is the
result of his constitution ; it belongs to his very
nature as a creature, and he is no more responsible
for such defects tjian a lame man is responsible for
his hobbling gait, or a blind man for his incom-
petency to distinguish colors. He is what God made
him ; he answers to the idea of his being, and is no
more blameworthy for the deformed condition of his
soul than a camel for the deformity of its back. The
principle is intuitively evident that no creature can
be required to transcend its powers. Ability con-
ditions responsibility. An original inability, natural
^ De Servit. et Liberal. Htim. Arbitrii, Opp. ed. Atnstel., vol.
viii, p. 151.
374 Calvinism and Evangelical Arininianisni.
in the sense that it enters into the notion of the
creatnre as such, completely obliterates all moral
distinctions with reference to the acts and habits
embraced within its sphere. . . .
" But there is another, a penal inability. It is that
which man has superinduced by his own voluntary
transgression. He was naturally able — that is, created
with all the habitudes and dispositions which were
involved in the loving choice of the good. Rectitude
w^as infused into his nature; it entered into the idea
of his being; he was fully competent for every exac-
tion of the law. He chooses sin, and by that very
act of choice impregnates his nature with contrary
habits and dispositions. His moral agency continues
unimpaired through all his subsequent existence. He
becomes a slave to sin, but his impotence, hopeless
and ruinous as it is, results from his own free choice.
In the loss of habits he loses all real power for good;
he becomes competent for nothing but sin; but he is
held responsible for the nature which God gave him,
and the law which constitutes its eternal norm ac-
cording to the divine idea and the spontaneous dic-
tates of his own reason can never cease to be the
standard of his beino: and life. All his descendants
were in him when he sinned and fell. His act was
legally theirs, and that depravity which he infused
into his own nature in the place of original righteous-
ness has become their inheritance. They stand,
therefore, from the first moment of their being in the
same relation to the law which he occupied at his fall.
Their impotence is properly their own. Here is not
the place to show how this can be. I am only show-
ing that there is a marked distinction between the
Objection from Divine Veracity. 375
inability which begins with the nature of a being and
the inability which it brings npon itself by sin; that
in the one case responsibility is measured by the ex-
tent of the actual power possessed, in the other, by
the extent of the power originally imparted. No
subject by becoming a traitor can forfeit the obliga-
tion to allegiance; no man can escape from the law
b\' voluntary opposition to law. The more helpless
a creature becomes in this aspect of the case, the
more wicked ; the more he recedes from the divine
idea, from the true norm of his being, the more guilty
and the more miserable. To creatures in a state of
apostasy actual ability is not, therefore, the measure
of obligation. They cannot excuse themselves under
the plea of impotency when that very impotence is
the thing charged upon them." ^
This subject has been again adverted to for the
purpose, in the first place, of showing that as the
spiritual inability of the sinner cannot absolve him
from the obligation to pay obedience to any require-
ment God may please to make, there is no insincerity
involved in the extension of the gospel offer occasioned
by the divine knowledge of the sinner's incompetency
to embrace it; and, in the second place, of guarding
against any misconception of the views about to be
presented in regard to that measure of ability which
the unregenerate sinner possesses in the merely nat-
ural sphere.
The question recurring, Can the unconverted sinner
will to do anything in regard to the offer of salvation
conveyed in the gospel, I answer:
He can will, or not will, to place his understanding
^ Coll. Wrllings, vol. i. pp. 395-39S-
376 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisjn,
in such relation to the evidence which God proposes
for his consideration, to the facts and teachings, the
invitations, remonstrances and warnings of the gos-
pel, as is suited to impress it with the duty, the policy,
the importance of paying attention to ihe great con-
cern of personal salvation.
He can will, or not will, to attend upon the ordi-
nances of God's house, and listen to the preaching of
the divine Word, and thus place himself in the way
along which Jesus as a Saviour is passing.
He can will, or not will, to read the Scriptures, and
so subject his mind to the influences which they are
suited to exert.
What hinders the unreoenerate man from doinof
these things? What hinders him from hearing the
preacher of the gospel any more than listening to any
public speaker? What hinders him from repairing to
the sanctuary any more than going to any other build-
ing? What hinders him from reading the Bible any
more than perusing any other book? To do these
things he is not dependent upon supernatural grace.
He may do them in the exercise of his natural will.
Now, on tlie supposition that he avails himself, as he
is competent to do, of these means which God fur-
nishes him in the natural sphere, it is perfectly pos-
sible for him to be impressed with the statements of
the gospel concerning his lost and ruined condition as
a sinner, and the redemption effected by Christ, and
the expediency and necessity of complying with the
calls of mercy. It is also conceivable that he should
be convinced of his utter inability to accept the offer
of the gospel and rely upon Christ for salvation. ^
^ Owen, IVorks, vol. iii. p. 229, fF. Goold's EJd.
Objection from Divine Veracity. 2)77
In this condition of mind, he can will, or not will,
to cry to God for help. What would hinder him
from determining, in view of his inability to meet the
exigency, to pray that God would enable him to come
to Christ and accept the offered salvation? Men sin-
cerely appeal for help only when they cannot help
themselves. The very conviction of impotence would
be the strongest motive to prayer. Now, the throne
of grace is accessible to all. God debars no sincere
suppliant from approaching it. He invites the dis-
tressed to call upon him and promises that he will
answer their cry.
These things, then, the unconverted sinner can do
in the natural sphere : he can hear the preaching of
the gospel, he can read the Scriptures, he can call on
God for delivering grace. In that charnel-house in
which the objector paints the gospel feast as spread —
yea, in the sepulchre in which his spiritual corpse is
lying, he can, in the exercise of his natural powers,
apprehend the invitation to partake of the blessings
of redemption and cry to God for ability to embrace
it. His prayers would have no merit: they would, on
the contrary, be the expression of impotence, of self-
despair and of utter dependence on God.
If, therefore, the unregenerate sinner may do these
things, what ground is there for imputing insincerity
to God in extending to him the gospel offer and urg-
ing him to accept it? If he will not do what he is
able to do, with what face can he find fault with God
for not doing for him what he is not able to do?
What excuse will he render in the day of final ac-
counts for his wilful neolect of the means which were
placed in his power? Should the Judge ask him, in
. 37^ Calvinism and Evangelical Arminiamsm.
that day: Didst thou attend the sanctuary and hearken
to the preaching of the gospel? Didst thou seriously
read the Scriptures? Didst thou call on God to save
thee? Didst thou not know that thou couldst have
done these things? he will be speechless; for his in-
ner consciousness will attest the justice of the awful
interrogatories, and close his lips to self-justification/
There is but one other consideration which I will
submit with reference to the special aspect of the sub-
ject before us. Men assert for themselves the power
of free-will. They claim the ability to decide the
jquestion of accepting the offer of salvation by the de-
1 termination of their own wills. This they arrogate
for themselves in the face of the clear and unmistak-
able testimony of God's Word to. the contrary. The
Scriptures inform them that they are dead in tres-
passes and sins, and that they can see the kingdom
of God only by virtue of a new and supernatural
birth, involving the infusion of spiritual life, the re-
newal of their wills, and ability to embrace Christ as
he is offered in the gospel. This they presumptuously
deny, and boldly take the ground that God himself
caunot determine the human will by his efficacious
grace, without invading the rights and prerogatives
which belong to its essential constitution. They
must themselves decide the question of embracing
the offer of salvation by the undetermined election of
their own wills. Assisted by grace they may be, but
controlled by grace they cannot and must not be.
\ The sovereignty of man's free will must be preserved.
^ A similar line of argument, very ably presented by the Rev.
S. G. Winchester, may be found in Vol. i. of the Tracts issued by
ti;e Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia.
Objection from Divine Veracity, 2)79
When, accordingly, God makes to them a tender of
salvation and calls upon them to accept it, without
imparting to them the efficacious, determining, con-
straining grace which they deliberately declare their
unwillingness to receive, what does he but meet them
on their own ground ? Did he not offer them sal-
vation he would, according to their own view, deal
with them unjustly. Did he bestow upon them con-
straining grace, he would, according to their own
view, contradict the constitution he imparted to them.
Very well; God treats them precisely as they demand
he should. He offers salvation to their acceptance ;
he does not confer upon them constraining grace. It
is just what they would have. Where, then, is the
reasonableness of the complaint that God is insincere,
if the case be regarded from their own point of view?
It is no answer to this statement of the matter that
the Calvinist says, God knows that the claim of the
unconverted sinner to the possession of free-will in
spiritual things is false. God not only knows .that
fact, but faithfully ascertains the sinner of it, urges it
upon his attention and exhorts him to relinquish all
dependence upon himself and throw himself upon un-
merited and sovereign mercy. This faithful and kindly
dealing with his soul the sinner flouts. Is not God
right in permitting him to walk in the light of the
sparks which he has kindled and to eat the fruit of
his own doings? Is not God right in saying to him,
in effect. You claim the power to decide the question
of salvation for yourself: have your own way : I offer
you salvation, I will not invincibly determine your
will : test the question- in the way you elect, and let
the issue prove whether you or your God be right. It
380 Calvinism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
would be bold and arroq-aiit to assio^n reasons for
God's procedures, save in those cases in which he is
pleased to reveal them; but if it be a part of his plan
to furnish a complete exposition of the principles of
sin and grace operating in connection with each other,
it would seem to be necessary to test the claim of an
unregenerate sinner to the possession of free will and
ability in relation to spiritual things and those which
concern the salvation of the soul. This is effectually
done by freely offering salvation to the sinner, and
opposing no obstacle to his receiving it; and also by
taking him at his own word, dealing with him on his
own terms, and leaving him to the decision of his
own will undetermined by an irresistible influence of
grace. This is exactly what the sinner claims to be
fair, and what the Arminian theology formally de-
mands for him. The conditions exacted on the
human side are fairly supplied on the divine side.
The issue is joined, and the question awaits settle-
ment whether the will of a fallen being possesses
elective ability in the spiritual sphere. And little is
risked, when the opinion is adventured, that the final
result, illuminated by the light of the great, judicial
day, will be that the claim of a fallen and unregener-
ate being to possess free will in spiritual things will
be exploded in the eyes of the on-looking universe.
The actual trial, which will have been had, will for-
ever settle the case.
Having vindicated the Calvinistic doctrine from the
charge of inconsistency with the sincerity of God, I
proceed to show that it is difficult for the Arminian to
redeem his own doctrine from the same reproach.
First, One fails to see how an offer of the gospel
Objection from Divine I eraa'ty. 38 1
when not actually made can be said to be sincerely
made. There are large sections of the world which
are designated as heathen for the very reason that they
have no knowledge of the gospel. To them the tender
of the blessings of redemption is not communicated.
But the Arminian insists that as the atonement of
Christ was made for every individual of the race, there
is a corresponding offer of its benefits to " every soul
of man." And as God imparts to every man suffi-
cient ability to embrace the offer, he is sincere in ex-
tending it to all. But the fact has to be met that the
offer of the gospel is not actually communicated to all
of those for whom it is alleged that redemption was
purchased. Myriads of heathen people neither know
that redemption has been effected, nor that its benefits
are offered to them. There is no offer of the gospel
actually made to masses of the heathen. To them it
is zero; and of zero nothing can be predicated. To
say that an offer which is not made is sincerely made
is absurd. A sincere offer which is not made is a
sincere nothing.
If it be said that the offer as contained in the Bible
is couched in universal terms, it is again replied as
before that the heathen have not the Bible, and there-
fore know nothing of the offer in whatsoever terms it
may be conveyed. If a feast were spread in a city,
and cards of invitation were issued in which all its
inhabitants were invited, and yet the cards were sent
only to some and the rest remained in ignorance of
the fact that they were included, how could it be said
that the invitation was sincerely extended to all? In
regard to such an invitation to all, the question of
sincerity could not be raised. The only question
would be as to the existence of the invitation.
382 Calvinism and Evangelical Anninianisnt.
The difficulty reaches farther back than this. It
may be fairly asked, how it can be shown that God
was sincere in making a redemptive provision for
those to whom he did not intend by his providence to
exfend the offer of participation in its benefits. For
it will be admitted that God could, if he pleased, con-
vey the gospel offer to every individual of the race.
This he does not please to do. The inconsistency has
to be accounted for between the allegation that God
in his Word declares that the provision of redemption
is designed for every man, and the fact that in his
providence he does not extend the offer of its bless-
ings to every man. And the question must be pressed,
how, in view of this inconsistency, God's sincerity
can be vindicated. One can conjecture no relief from
this difficulty except upon the ground that Christ has
bound upon the Church the obligation to communi-
cate the gospel offer to all mankind. This is not true
of the Old Testament Church, and while it is true of
the New Testament Church, still the ability and the
willingness of the Church to comply with this obliga-
tion are conferred alone by the grace of God. As-
suredly, the merely natural inclinations of Christians
would not impel them to convey to the heathen the
knowledge of the gospel. God's decretive will, as
indicated in the measures of his providence, must,
therefore, be regarded as implicated in the fact that
the gospel is not actually communicated to every in-
dividual of the race.
It does not relieve the difficulty to say, that God
communicates sufficient grace to the church to enable
her to obey the command of her Head to preach the
gospel to every creature, and leaves it to her by the
Objection from Divine Veracity. 383
free election of her self-determining will to carry the
command into execution. For, in that case, it must
be confessed that God foreknew that the church
would fail, to a great extent, in yielding obedience to
the command, and so conditioned upon her dis-
obedience the fate of the heathen world. He de-
signed no other means for the communication of the
gospel to the heathen than the agency of the church,
and he knew that that instrumentality would not be
adequately employed to accomplish the contemplated
end. The Arminian cannot escape the difficulty of
adjusting, upon his principles, the non-extension of
the gospel offer to large sections of the race to the
sincerity of God. The Calvinist is not burdened
with this difficulty, because, in the first place, he
does not hold that the atonement of Christ was offered
for every individual of mankind ; and because, in the
second place, he holds that the invitation to partake
of the benefits of the atonement is extended to all
those who hear the gospel.
Secondly, The Arminian is confronted with the
difficulty that, according to his doctrine, ability to.
accept the gospel offer is imparted to those to whonil
that offer is never actually made. He teaches that
God has given to every man sufficient grace, — that is
to say, sufficient grace to enable him to embrace the
salvation purchased for him by Christ. The Evan-
gelical Arminian, as has already been shown, holds
that God has, through the merit of Christ, removed
the guilt of Adam's sin from the race, and that he
has imparted a degree of spiritual life to ever)' soul
of man, or, as it is otherwise expressed, removed a
degree of spiritual death from every soul of man.
384 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
The result is, that every man of the race is furnished
b}' supernatural grace with ability to embrace the
gospel offer whenever it is tendered to him. He is
thus prepared for its reception. This divinely im-
parted ability to receive it must be regarded as a
prophecy and a pledge that it will be brought in con-
tact with him; just as the divinely given ability of
the child to receive food is a promise registered in its
very make that the needed nourishment will be pro-
vided for it. Why the receptive ability, in either
case, if the thing to be received were never intended
to be brought into relation to it? There would be a
contradiction of a divine pledge implicitly but really
stamped upon the nature of man — one-half of a divine
arrangement, which supposes and guarantees another
half as its complement ; another half which, how-
ever, is wanting. The heathen are furnished with
ample ability to embrace the gospel offer, but it is
never brought into relation to countless multitudes
of them. It is fair to ask. Where, upon such a sup-
position, is the divine sincerity? It matters not that
the heathen may be unconscious of this divine gift of
gracious ability to receive the gospel. Tliat would
only show that he is not conscious of God's infraction
of the pledge inlaid in his being. The inconsistency
is in the Arminian doctrine. That is all to which
attention is called. God is represented as not fulfill-
ing an implied, but real, pledge and guarantee.
In one or other of the following ways it is conceiv-
able that the Arminian may attempt to set aside this
argument:
In the first place, he may contend that evangeliza-
tion by Christian missionaries is not the only method
Objection from Divhie Veracity. 385
by which the heathen acquire a knowledge of the
gospel scheme, but that they possess, apart from that
method, a sufficient acquaintance with the promise of
redemption to condition their salvation. When the
objection to the Calvinistic doctrine of its inconsist-
ency with the divine goodness was under considera-
tion, this hypothesis was discussed and refuted. Some-
thing more in regard to it may now, however, be
added.
It may be said that it is impossible to assign a limit
of time beyond which the world in general ceased to
have any saving acquaintance with the provisions of
the gospel ; and that such instances as those of Job
and Alelchisedec would appear to show that a knowl-
edge of the gospel sufficient to save might be derived
from the traditions of the Patriarchal dispensation, or
by immediate revelation.
The cases wliich are appealed to were those of per-
sons who lived in the Patriarchal period ; and it is
certainly unwarrantable to make them analogous to
the case of the heathen who have lived after the ex-
piration of the Jewish dispensation and the beginning
of the Christian. Besides, they are entirely too extra-
ordinary and exceptional to be pleaded as illustrating
the condition of the masses of the heathen world.
We are too ignorant concerning the question, who
Melchisedec was, to employ his case as an element in
this argument; and it may well be asked, What cases,
since the commencement of the Christian dispensa-
tion, have ever been discovered among the heathen
which bore any resemblance to that of Job and his
contemporaries? As Cornelius the Centurion lived in
contact with the Jews, it is obvious that he deriv^ed his
386 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
knowledge of the gospel from them: indeed, that fact
is expressly mentioned in the history of his case.
The hypothesis of an immediate revelation of the
plan of redemption to the heathen is too wild and
fanciful to merit serious refutation. There is one
consideration which ought with those who accept the
authority of the Scriptures to be decisive of this
question. It is that Paul, the apostle to the heathen
nations, plainly intimates in his epistles to the
churches gathered out of them, that previously to the
preaching of the gospel by Christian missionaries
the members of those churches were destitute of any
knowledo^e of the scheme of salvation. Who can
doubt this that reads the description of the moral
condition of the heathen, as given by him in the
Bpistle to the Romans? And in the Epistle to the
Ephesians he speaks expressly on the subject. He
calls upon the members of the church at Ephesus to
remember the ignorant and hopeless condition in
which they were before they heard the gospel at his
lips. "Wherefore," says he, "remember, that ye
being in the time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are
called uncircumcision by that which is called the cir-
cumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that
time ye were without Christ; being aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the cov-
enants of promise, having no hope, and without God
in the world." ^ Here he tells the Ephesian believers
that when they were heathen they were aliens from
the commonwealth of Israel, that is to say, that they
had no connection with the church of God; and in
consequence of that fact that they were strangers to
' Epb. ii. 12, 13.
Objection from Divine Veracity. 387
the covenants of promise, by which he means to say
that they were ignorant of the gospeL Because they
were not in contact with the church they could have
no knowledge of the gospel. And because they were
ignorant of the gospel, they were, he goes on to
argue, without Christ; plainly intimating that there
can be no saving relation to Christ apart from the
knowledge of the gospel. Further, because they
were without Christ, he declares that they were with-
out God. Having in their heathen condition had no
saving relation to Christ they could have had no sav-
ing relation to God, and therefore they had no hope.
In this passage the apostle plainly teaches that the
heathen, apart from the evangelizing labors of Christ-
ian missionaries, have no saving knowledge of the
gospel, and that so long as that ignorance continues
their condition is hopeless.
In the Epistle to the Romans he makes a more
general statement. He declares that it is necessary
to the salvation of any man, wdiether Jew or Greek,
that he call on the name of the Lord, and that no
man could call on that name who had not heard it by
means of preaching. This plainly intimates that
without the preaching of the gospel none can have
any saving acquaintance with it. As the heathen
have not the preaching of the gospel, it follows that
they have no knowledge of the gospel.
Other arguments of a similar character might be
derived from Scripture, but these are sufficient, with
those who respect the authority of the divine Word,
to refute the supposition that apart from the preach-
ing of Christian missionaries the heathen possess any
knowledge of the gospel scheme.
388 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
With these representations of the condition of the
heathen fnrnished in the New Testament Scriptures
the observation of modern missionaries concurs.
They meet no heathen who have any knowledge
whatsoever of the gospel scheme. And it is evident
that the missionary efiforts of Evangelical Arminian
bodies are grounded in this supposition of ignorance
of the gospel on the part of the heathen world. It
cannot, in consistency with their admissions, be con-
tended that they institute these efforts in order to
impart to the heathen a clearer knowledge of the
gospel than they are presumed already to possess.
They go upon the theory that without the preaching
of missionaries the heathen have no acquaintance
with even the fundamental elements of the plan of
redemption.
If it be clear that without the preaching of the
gospel de novo to the heathen they possess no knowl-
edge of it, the difficulty remains that, according to the
Arminian doctrine, God has given to masses of men
an ability to accept the offer of salvation, and at the
same time does not secure the extension of that offer
to them. Consequently, the question in regard to
the divine sincerity has not been answered.
In the second place, the Arminian, in order to meet
the difficulty in hand, may contend that the heathen
who have no knowledge of the gospel are saved by
an indirect application to them of the merits of
Christ's atonement. But the essence of the theory of
sufficient grace as imparted to all men is, that all are
in this way enabled to embrace the offer of salvation
— to repent of sin and believe in Christ. What is the
office of this universally imparted ability, if the
Objection from Divine Veracity . 389
mode in which it is to be exerted, the things npon
which it is designed to terminate, are completely nn-
known by its possessors? Even were it supposed that
the mercy of God may save the heathen who know
not the gospel through the indirect and therefore un-
consciously experienced application to them of the
benefits of the atoneuient, what becomes of the di-
vinely given ability directly and consciously to receive
those benefits? There is an aptitude without the ob-
ject to which it is suited, a power without the end
which elicits its exercise, a divine constitution to the
integrity of which two complementary elements are
necessary, but from which one of them is absent. It
is manifest that upon this hypothesis no account can
be given of a universally imparted ability to receive
the gospel offer, which would harmonize it with the
sincerity of God. It would be a useless and therefore
deceptive endowment, a prophecy without fulfilment,
a beginning without a possible end.
In the third place, the Arminian may contend that
the ability furnished by grace to the heathen whoi
have not the gospel is designed to enable them, in
consequence of the atonement, to render such an
obedience to the moral law, relaxed and accommo-
dated to their weakness, as will secure their accept-
ance with God. Had not this astounding theory
been formally enunciated and supported, it might be
deemed impossible that it should be introduced as an
element into a Christian theology. But it is not a
shadow which is conjured up. This doctrine, as al-
ready pointed out, is stated and maintained by no less
a theologian than Richard Watson. ^ Indeed, in the
^ Theo. Itist., V. ii, p. 446.
390 Calvinism- and Evangelical Arminianisju.
passage in which he treats of the abih'ty possessed by
the heathen, he does not even qnalify his statement
by snpposing that the law is accommodated to their
weak moral strength, bnt affirms that they are able to
obey the law as "written on their hearts," that is,
"the traditionary law the equity of which their con-
sciences attested," that they are "capable of doing
all the things contained in the law," "that all such
Gentiles as were thus obedient should be 'justified
in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men
by Jesus Christ, according to his Gospel.' " But let
it be admitted that these extraordinary utterances
have reference to the moral law as relaxed and accom-
modated to the moral strength of the heathen, and
that the theory ought to be viewed as affected by the
advantage which such an admission would furnish
to it.
It might easily be shown that the hypothesis of a
relaxation of the moral law and its accommodation
to the weak moral strength of the sinner is both un-
scriptural and absurd ; that the possibility of tlie
justification of any sinner, either upon the two-fold
ground of the merits of Christ and his own personal
obedience to law, or upon the sole ground of his own
personal obedience, is contradicted alike by the
explicit testimony of Scripture, the creeds of all
Protestant Churches and the symbolical articles of
Evangelical Arminian bodies ; that the doctrine of
justification by faith alone, as set forth so clearly in
the Word of God, bears upon the whole race of man,
upon the heathen as well as upon those who possess
a written revelation, — upon all these grounds the
theory under consideration could, without difficulty,
Objection froin Divine J^eracity. 391
be convicted of being destitute of* truth. But the
point which is now emphasized is, that it represents
God as violating his own veracity. For, if anything
is susceptible of proof it is that in his Word he de-
clares that by the works of the law shall no flesh be
justified. This theory by asserting that he imparts
to some flesh, namely the heathen, ability to obey
the law in order to their justification, represents him
as contradicting the plainest statements of his Word.
No flesh, no man living, shall be justified by the
deeds of the law : some flesh, some men living,. may
be justified by the deeds of the law — this is the flat
contradiction in w^iich this extraordinary theory in-
volves the God of truth. The alternatives are, either
he is insincere in the teachings of his Word, or he is
insincere in his dealings with the heathen.
It has thus been shown that the difficulty that
ability to accept the gospel offer is imparted to some
to whom that offer is not actually made, a diflSculty
growing directly from the doctrine of the Arminian
and implicating him in the charge of representing
God as insincere, is not met and removed by any of
the methods by which he n;ay seek to accomplish
that end. To say that God gives ability to all the
heathen to attain salvation is to say, in relation to
multitudes of them, that by his grace he enables
them to do what by his providence he affords them no
opportunitx' of doing.
Thirdly, The Arminian charges the Calvinistic doc-
trine as making God insincere in extending the gospel
offer to non-elect men; but the Arminian doctrine is
chargeable with making God insincere in extending
that offer to any man. It has really the same diffi-
392 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
culty to carry in relation to the extension of the offer
to every man, which the Calvinistic doctrine has to
bear with reference to its extension to some men.
The objection urged against the Calvinistic doctrine
is two- fold: in the first place, that God necessitated
the inability of the sinner, and in the second place,
that he makes to him an offer of salvation which, in
consequence of that inability, he knows the sinner
cannot accept. The first part of this objection is not
pertinent. The Calvinistic doctrine denies that God
necessitated the sinner's inability. The second part
is pertinent. The Calvinist admits that God makes
the offer of salvation to the sinner, knowing that he
has not the ability in himself to accept it, and this
difficulty he is bound to meet. The Arminian affirms
that he is not confronted with that difficulty because,
according to his doctrine, God bestows upon the sin-
ner who hears the gospel offer the ability to embrace
it. Now, if it can be proved that the ability which
the Arminian affirms to be conferred upon the sinner
is really no ability at all, it will be shown that the
Arminian doctrine labors under precisely the same
difficulty with the Calvinistic, aggravated, however,
by the consideration that it holds with respect to the
extension of the gospel to all men; whereas the Cal-
vinistic has to meet it, only with respect to the tender
of that offer to some men — namely, the non-elect.
The proof that the ability to accept the gospel offer,
which the Arminian asserts to be imparted to the sin-
ner, is really no sufficient ability, has been furnished
in the preceding part of this discussion. There the
argument going to show the utter insufficiency of this
alleged ability divinely conferred upon the unregen-
Objection from Divine Veracity. 393
erate sinner was prosecnted with some thoroughness.
It is unnecessary to repeat it here.
If, therefore, it can be evinced tliat the Calvinist
represents God as insincere because he extends the
gospel offer to the non-elect who are unable to accept
it, for the very same reason it can be proved that the
Arminian represents God as insincere in communi-
cating that offer to all men. The Arminian has no
right to urge an objection against the Calvinistic doc-
trine which really presses with still greater weight
upon his own.
This concludes the discussion of the objections
against the Calvinistic doctrines of election and rep-
robation, which are grounded in their alleged incon-
sistency with the moral attributes of God.
SECTION IV.
OBJECTIONS FROM THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN
ANSWERED,
I PASS on, finally, to answer those objections to the
Calvinistic doctrines of election and reprobation
which are derived from the Moral Agency of Man.
This, for two reasons, will be done briefly. In the
first place, the preceding discussion, in which objec-
tions to these doctrines drawn from the moral attri-
butes of God were subjected to a thorough-going ex-
amination, has swept away much of the ground upon
which the Arminian erects difficulties professedly
growing out of the relations between' the divine effic-
iency and the agency of the human will. Again and
again, by repeated statement itsqiie ad nauseam^ which
could only have been justified, and was fully justified,
by the common misconception and consequent mis-
representation of the true doctrine of symbolic Cal-
vinism, and the importance of its being stated and
expounded with a clearness and fulness that would
render misapprehension impossible, it has been shown,
that the causal efficiency of God did not so operate
upon the will of man as to determine it to the com-
mission of the first sin and thus to necessitate the
Fall. Man sinned by a free — that is, not a merely
spontaneous, but an avoidable, decision of his own
(394)
Objection from Moral Agency of Man. 395
will. For this even Twisse, the great Snpralapsarian,
explicitly contends. It has also been evinced, by a
minute analysis of the doctrine of the Evangelical
Arniinian concerning the human will after the Fall,
that he is shut up to a choice between two alterna-
tives : either, that the prevenient and sufficient grace
which he affirms to be conferred upon all men is re-
generating grace; or, that it is the natural will, clothed
with the power to accept or to reject the aid of super-
natural grace, which determines the question of prac-
tical salvation. If he adopts the former alternative
he admits the Calvinistic doctrine, so far as the nature
of the grace is concerned, though not the numerical
extent of its bestowal. If he chooses the latter alter-
native, he makes, in the last resort, common cause
with the Pelagian. If he concedes prevenient and
sufficient grace to be regenerating, he, along with the
Calvinist, is pressed by the difficulty of reconciling
the determining efficacy of God's will with the free
action of the human will. If he denies that grace to
be regenerating, he, along with the Pelagian, gets
quit of the difficulty mentioned, but, with him, en-
counters the greater, of showing how a sinful will,
undetermined by the divine efficiency, determines it-
self to tlie generation of holy dispositions and the
performance of saving acts.
In the second place, as it has been the design of
this treatise, in the main, to consider the peculiar and
distinctive doctrines of Evangelical Arminians in
connection with election and reprobation, it would
not comport with that purpose elaborately to examine
the ground which is common between them and the
earlier Arminians of the Remonstrant type. There is
396 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
at bottom but little to discriminate the one system
from the other as far as the moral agency of man is
involved. So much as differentiates the Evangelical
Arminian scheme, in regard to the relation of the
human will to the grace of redemption, has passed
under strict review in the foregoing remarks. For
these reasons, what is to be said under this head of
the subject will be compressed within narrow limits.
Certain things must be premised. The meaning of
the terms employed in the discussion ought to be
definitely fixed;, otherwise no satisfactory result can be
reached. Nothing is more common among Calvinists
than this remark, which is by many accepted as
almost an axiom: The attempt to reconcile the sov-
ereignty of God and the free agency of man is hope-
less and therefore gratuitous. God is sovereign: man
is a free-agent. Both these propositions are true.
I^ach is separately established by its own independent
evidence. Each, therefore, is to be maintained.
Our inability to evince their consistency is no ground
for rejecting either. Let us leave their reconciliation
to another sphere of being, satisfied in this with the
reflection that they are not contradictions. There is
a sense in which all this is true; but, without qualifi-
cations of its meaning and definitions of its terms,
the dictum as one of universal validity is so vague as
to settle nothing. What is meant by one of the terms
of the contrast — the sovereignty of God? It may be
conceived as that aspect of the divine will which is
expressed in both his efficient and permissive decrees.
Accordingly it may be apprehended as in some in-
stances absolutely pre-determining events, and as in
others bounding, ordering and governing events which
Objection from Moral Agency of Man. 397
are not absolutely predetermined, but permitted to
occur. Or, again, the sovereignty of God may be
conceived as thaX- aspect of his will which is expressed
alone in efficient decree, and as therefore absolutely
pre-determining events. Now it is evident that the
question of reconciling the free-agency of man with
that sort of divine sovereignty which operates in con-
nection with permissive decree is a very different one
from the question of reconciling the free-agency of
man with that kind of sovereignty which operates
in connection with efficient decree and absolute pre-
determination. This distinction cannot be disre-
garded, if we would get a clear apprehension of the
state of the question.
What, next, is meant by the other term of the con-
trast— the free-agency of man ? I shall not here pause
to discuss the unnecessary question, whether there is
not a difference between the freedom of the will and
the freedom of the man; but shall assume that there
is no such difference worth contending about, since
the will is precisely the power through which the
freedom of the man expresses itself. To affirm or
deny the freedom of the will is the same thing as to
affirm or deny the freedom of the man. The very
question is, whether or not the man is free in willing,
or free to will. If he is not free in respect to his will,
it is certain that he is not in respect to any other fac-
ulty. Now, if we may credit the common judgment
of mankind, there are two distinct kinds of freedom
which ought never to be confounded. The one is the
freedom of deliberate election between opposing alter-
natives, of going in either of two directions, the free-
dom, as it is sometimes denominated, of otherwise
39^ Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
determining. The other is the freedom of a fixed
and determined spontaneity. It might have been
well if these two things had always been kept dis-
tinct; if the X.^x\\\ freedom had been restricted to the
former, and the term spontaneity had been assigned
to the latter. This was the jndgment of so acute and
judicious a thinker as Calvin, and had that course
been pursued a vast amount of logomachy would have
been avoided. Let us illustrate the importance and
test the accuracy of this abstract distinction by con-
crete cases. Man in innocence possessed the freedom
of deliberate election between the opposite alterna-
tives of sin and holiness. So has the Church univer-
sal held. He may have chosen either. He was not
determined by a fixed moral spontaneity either to
holiness or to sin. Man in his fallen and unregener-
ate condition does not possess the freedom of deliber-
ate election between the opposing alternatives of holi-
ness and sin. By his first fatal act of transgression,
he determined his spiritual condition as one of fixed
spontaneity in the single direction of sin. He is
spontaneously free to choose sin, but he is not, with-
out grace, free deliberately to elect holiness. Here
then is a case of spontaneous freedom, but not of the
freedom of deliberate choice between conflicting alter-
natives. Man as a saint in glory has not the freedom
of deliberate election between the alternatives of holi-
ness and sin; he is determined by a fixed spontaneity
in the direction of holiness. He is spontaneously
free in the choice of holiness, but he is not free delib-
erately to elect sin. When, therefore, it is assumed
that the free-agency of man is an independent truth
resting upon its own indisputable evidence, it must
Objection from Moral Agejtcy of Mari. 399
be inquired, Which of these kinds of free-agency is
meant? For it is of vital importance to know in
what sense the Wrm is employed. And it is also of
the greatest consequence to understand in what cir-
cumstances man is contemplated, when free-agency
in either one or the other sense is predicated of him.
Let us now apply these obvious distinctions between
two forms of divine sovereignty on the one hand, and
.two kinds of human freedom on the other, to the
maxim which has been cited in regard to the recon-
cilability of the sovereignty of God and the free-
agency of man. Let it be observ^ed that in this dic-
tum the sovereignty of God is regarded as his efficient
and pre-determining will. It is plain that the ques-
tion is not, how the free-agency of man can be recon-
ciled with the sovereignty of God considered as his
permissive will. It is only when the free action of
the human will is viewed in its relation to the efficient
and pre-determining will of God that apparent con-
tradiction results — an apparent contradiction with
which it is said we must rest content in our present
sphere of thought.
How was it in the case of man before the Fall ? If
lie possessed the freedom of deliberate election be-
tween the opposite alternatives of holiness and sin, if
he was free to sin and free to abstain from sinning, it
would seem to be clear that God did not by his effic-
ient will pre-determine that he should sin; for in that
case, the sin of man would have been necessitated
and therefore unavoidable. On the other hand, if
God had efficaciously pre-determined man's sin, it
would seem to be equally clear that man could not
have had the freedom of deliberate election between
400 Calvinis77i and Evangelical Armiitianism.
holiness and sin, between sinning and not sinning.
To say that God pre-determined the first sin, and that
man was free to abstain from its commission, that is,
that he might not have sinned, would be to affirm not
merely an apparent, but a real contradiction. As pre-
determined by the divine will to sin he was obliged
to sin; as free to abstain from sinning he was not
obliged to sin. The contradiction is patent. This
contradiction is not inherent in the Calvinistic doc-
trine. The Calvinistic Confessions, which surely
ought to be accepted as exponents of Calvinism,
affirm that man before the Fall was possessed of the
freedom of deliberate election between the alterna-
tives of sin and holiness ; and they also teach that
God decreed to permit — they do not assert that he
efficiently decreed — the first sin. There is conse-
quently no question of reconciling the free-agency of
man before the Fall with the sovereignty of God con-
sidered as his efficient and pre-determining will, so
far as the first sin is concerned. The relation was
between the sovereignty of God as his permissive
will and the freedom of man deliberately to choose
between the opposite alternatives of holiness and sin;
and whatever difficulties may arise in connection with
that relation, they cannot be regarded as involving
even a seeming contradiction.
The inquiry next arises. What is the relation be-
tween the sovereign will of God and the free-agency
of man after the Fall ? In his fallen condition, un-
modified by the influence of supernatural grace, man
does not possess the freedom of deliberate election
between the contrary alternatives of sin and holiness.
That sort of freedom, as has been shown, he had in
Objection from Moral Agejicy of Man. 401
his estate of innocence, but lie lost it when he fell.
By his own free, that is, unnecessitated, self-decision
in favor of sin, he established in his soul a fixed and
determined spontaneity in tlie direction of sin. He
sins freely, in the sense of spontaneously; in sinning-
he is urged by no compulsory force exerted by a
divine influence either upon him or through him, but
follows the bent of his own inclination — in a word,
does as he pleases. He is not, however, free to be
holy or to do holy acts. Spiritually disabled, he is
no more free to produce holiness than is a dead man
to generate life. When, therefore, it is affirmed that
man is a free-agent in his sinful and unregenerate
condition, it must be demanded, what sort of free-
agency is meant. If the freedom of choosing between
sin and holiness be intended, the affirmation is not
true. He only possesses the freedom which is im-
plied by a fixed spontaneity in accordance with which
he pleases to sin. Only in that sense is he a free-
agent, as to spiritual things. In inquiring, whether
the free-agency of man in his sinful and unregenerate
condition can be reconciled with the sovereign will
of God as efficient and determinative, it must be re-
membered that it is only the freedom of sinful spon-
taneity concerning which the inquiry is possible. It
alone, and not the freedom of election between sin
and holiness, is one of the terms of the relation.
What this relation is between the sinful spontaneity
of the unregenerate man and the sovereign will of
God as efficient and determining, I will not now dis-
cuss/ for the reason that the matter which is under
^ The doctrine of Calvin upon that subject I presented in the
Soutliern Presbyterian Revieiv, for October, 1880.
26
402 Calvinis7n and Evangelical Arminianism.
consideration here is the relation between the sove-
reignty of God and the free-agency of man in respect
to the great concern of practical salvation.
Before the regeneration of a sinner the qnestion
of reconciling his free-agency as to spiritual things
with the sovereignty of God viewed as efficient can-
not exist, for the plain reason that the un regenerate
man has no such free-agency. He is not free to
choose holiness, to accept in his natural strength the
gospel offer and to believe on Christ unto salvation.
It is not intended to affirm that God positively inter-
poses hindrances in the way of his performing these
spiritual acts, or that the legal obstacles in the way
of his salvation have not been removed by the atoning
work and merit of the Saviour. The contrary is true.
Nor is the ground taken, that the un regenerate sinner
is not under obligation to obey the call and com-
mand of God to all men to comply with the terms
of the gospel, or that he is not bound to use such
means of grace as are divinely placed in his power, or
that he has no natural ability and opportunities to
employ those means. But although all this is con-
ceded, still the doctrine of Scripture is that he has no
freedom to will his own spiritual life, and conse-
quently no freedom, in the absence of that life, to
wnll the existence of spiritual dispositions and the
discharge of spiritual functions. His spontaneous
habitudes are exclusively sinful: he is dead in tres-
passes and sins. To talk then of reconciling the
sovereignty of God with the free-agency in spiritual
things of the unregenerate sinner is to talk of re-
conciling that sovereignty with nothing. One of the
terms of the supposed relation is absent, and the re-
objection from Moral Agency of Man, 403
latioii is non-existent. There is no problem to be
solved. The influence of the Spirit of God upon the
sinner before reg-eneration, however powerful, is
simply illuminating and suasive. It enlightens, in-
structs and convinces, warns, invites and persuades;
but as such divine operations are confessedly not de-
termining, the problem under consideration does not
emerge in connection with them.
Nor can it occur in respect to regeneration itself.
In the supreme moment of regeneration, which from
tlie nature of the case is an instantaneous act of
almighty power, the sinner can be nothing more than
the passive recipient of a newly created principle of
life. The omnipotent grace of God efficaciously
causes a new spiritual existence, makes the previously
dead sinner a new creature in Christ Jesus. The
ability to w'ill holiness, the freedom to choose it, are
thus divinely produced. Free-agency in regard to
spiritual things is originated. That sort of free-
agency not having existed until called into being by
the regenerating act, it is idle to talk of reconciling
it with the sovereign and efficient will of God ex-
pressed in that act. The only reconciliation, in the
case, which it is possible to conceive is that between
a producing cause and its effects; and it would be un-
meaning to speak of their reconciliation before the
effect is produced.
After the regeneration of the sinner has been ef-
fected, the question as to the reconciliation of divine
sovereignty and human free-agency becomes a perti-
nent one, and, I am free to confess, an insoluble one.
It is clearly the teaching of the Scriptures that God
determines the will of the renewed man to holiness,
404 Catvi7iism and Evangelical Arminiamsm.
and also that the will of the renewed man freely, that
is, spontaneously chooses holiness. The renewed na-
ture, after being started into existence, is not left to
develop the principle of life, like a potential germ, in
accordance with inherent and self-acting laws or spir-
itual forces. It continually needs fresh infusions of
grace, new accessions of spiritual strength; and the
grace which created the nature, and implanted in it
the principle of spiritual life, is necessary not only to
sustain that life, but also to determine its activities.
At the same time the renewed_ nature spontaneously
exerts its own energies. In a word, God determines
the renewed will, but the renewed will acts in accord-
ance with its own spontaneous elections. A single
explicit passage of Scripture proves this representa-
tion of the case to be correct. The apostolic injunc-
tion is: "Work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both
to will and to do of his good pleasure." ^
How this is so, who can explain? It is a mystery
unfathomed, and probably, in the present sphere of
thought, unfathomable. The difficulty does not con-
sist in the fact that God creates a will endowed with
the power of free, spontaneous action. He also cre-
ates the intellect and the feelings with their own
spontaneous activities. But the difficulty lies in this:
that having created a will with ability spontaneously
to elect its own acts, he by an efficient influence de-
termines those acts. This he did not do in the in-
stance of man before the Fall. He did not determine
his spontaneous activities. But this he does in the
case of the believer in Christ, so far as he is regener-
^ Phil. ii. 12, 13.
Objection .fro7n Moral Agency of Man. 405
ate and his will is renewed, and in the case of the
saint in glory. Here the maxim, which has been the
snbject of criticism in these remarks, holds good. In
our inability specnlatively to harmonize the sovereign
efficiency of God with the spontaneous freedom of the
saint, w^e are obliged to accept both facts upon the
authority of the divine Word. Both being true, there
can be no real contradiction between them ; and our
impotence to effect their reconciliation is but one of
the many lessons which enforce the humility spring-
ing from the limitation of our faculties, furnish scope
for the exercise of faith, and stimulate to the quest of
truth. But formidable as this difficulty is, it is not
the insuperable difficulty involved in the supposition
that the efficient determination of the divine will con-
sists with the freedom of deliberate election between
contrary alternatives, on the part of the human will.
The one may be inconceivable; the other is incredible.
The bearing of this statement of the distinctions
which ought to be observed touching divine sover-
eignty and human free-agency upon the objections to
the doctrines of election and reprobation will be ap-
parent as those objections shall be considered. It
goes far towards answering them by anticipation, and
will justify brevity in dealing with them.
First, It is alleged that these doctrines are incon-
sistent with liberty and therefore with moral account-
ability.
Secondly, It is alleged that these doctrines are in-
consistent with personal effiDrts to secure salvation.
We must divide. As election influences only the
case of the elect, the question is, first, whether it is
inconsistent with their liberty and moral account-
4o6 Calvinisin and Evangelical Arminianis7n.
ability; and, secondly, whether it is inconsistent with
their efforts to secnre salvation. The only mode in
which it can be conceived to be inconsistent with
their free moral agency in these forms is, that by
means of efficacions grace it irresistibly effects the
production of holiness.
1. It is admitted that such is the result of election
upon the elect.
2. This, however, does not prove it to be inconsist-
ent with their free moral agency, but the contrary,
for the following reasons:
(i.) Did not grace create a will to be holy, there
could be no such will in a sinner. As has been al-
ready shown, he lost the liberty of willing holiness by
reason of sin. He cannot, in his own strength, re-
cover it. The dead cannot recover life. As, then,
efiBcacious grace, the fruit of election, restores to him
the liberty to will holiness, so far from being incon-
sistent with that liberty, it is proved to be its only
cause. How a cause can be inconsistent with its
effect, and an effect due to its operation alone, it is
impossible to see. Upon this point the Evangelical
Arminian maintains contradictory positions. He
holds that as man is naturally dead in sin, he cannot
of himself will holiness. Grace must give him that
ability, that is, that spiritual liberty to will holiness.
But he also holds that if grace does this, it destroys
the liberty of the moral agent.
(2.) The liberty and moral accountability of the
elect cannot be destroyed by election, acting by
means of efficacious and determininfr erace, for if
it were, there could be no such thing as immuta-
ble confirmation in holiness. But Kvano-elical Ar-
Objection from Moral Agency of Man. 407
minians themselves admit the fact that the glorified
saints are confirmed in holiness, so as to be beyond
the dano^er of a fall. Now, there are only two sup-
positions possible: either, the glorified saints are con-
firmed by virtue of their own culture of holy habits,
that is to say, by virtue of the holy characters which
they themselves have formed; or, they are confirmed
by the determining grace of God. The first supposi-
tion is manifestly inconsistent with the confirmation
of infants dying in infancy, and of adults who, like
the penitent thief on the cross, are transferred to
heaven without having had the opportunity of de-
veloping holy characters on earth. The second sup-
position must therefore be adopted, to wit, that the
saints in glory are confirmed in their standing by the
infusions of determining grace. But it surely will
not be contended that they are deprived of liberty
and moral accountability on that account. No more,
then, are saints on earth. The principle is precisely
the same in both cases. Further, Evangelical Ar-
minians acknowledge that those who reach heaven
are elected to final salvation. If election, according
to their own admission, is not inconsitent with the
liberty and moral accountability of moral agents in
heaven, why should it be held to be inconsistent with
those attributes in moral aijents on earth?
(3.) The doctrine of Prayer, as held by both Evan-
gelical Arminians and Calvinists, completely refutes
this objection. Prayer is a confession of human help-
lessness, a cry for the intervention of almighty and
efficacious grace. When we cannot deliver ourselves,
we appeal to God for deliverance. When our wills
are confessedly impotent, we implore grace to quicken
4o8 Calvijiism and Evangelical Arminianism,
and determine them. We pray not merely to be
helped, but to be saved. Would he, whose feet are
stuck fast in the horrible pit and the miry clay, be
relieved by such an answer to his prayers as Hercules
is fabled to have given to the wagoner: Help yourself,
and then I will help you ? I cannot help myself, Ife
cries; O Lord, pluck thou my feet out of the horrible
pit and out of the miry clay. When God answers his
prayer, delivers him, puts his feet upon a rock, and a
new song in his mouth, does he interfere with the sup-
pliant's liberty and moral accountability ? If so, the
more of such interference, the better for despairing
sinners. Its absence is hell; its presence is heaven.
The case is too plain to need argument. Let the ex-
perience of converted sinners decide.
(4.) The sudden, overwhelming, irresistible conver-
sion of some men furnishes an answ^er to this objec-
tion. The fact of such conversions Wesley frankly
admitted. How could he help it ? Had he not seen
them with his own eyes? Had he not read of them
in the Bible? And are such conversions incompatible
with the liberty and moral accountability of those
who are their blessed subjects ? When Saul of Tarsus,
the hater of Jesus, the sava-ge inquisitor thirsting for
the blood of the saints, was suddenly, overwhelm-
ingly, irresistibly converted and transmuted into a
flaming preacher of the Cross, was the supernatural,
efficacious and determining transformation inconsist-
ent with his liberty and moral accountability?
(5.) The doctrine of a Special Providence, main-
tained alike by Evangelical Arminians and Calvin-
ists, overthrows this objection. It is confessed to be
a scriptural truth, that God by an influence exerted
Objection from Moral Agency of Man. 409
in his natural providence upon the minds and hearts
of men often determines their thoughts, inclinations
and purposes, without violating- their liberty and
accountability. Why, then, should it be thought a
thing incredible that he may, with the same result,
exercise a like determining influence by his grace?
What is grace but special providence running in re-
demptive moulds? The argument here from analogy
is conclusive. To deny determining grace is to
deny determining providence. To admit determin-
ing providence is to admit determining grace.
3. Election caiinot be inconsistent with personal
efforts to secure salvation.
(i.) An obvious reason is, that its very design is to
accomplish that result. This is its teleology. How
can those be hindered from believing, repenting and
performing the duties of holiness, by that which is the
sole cause of faith, repentance and holy living? And
it must be remembered, that these graces are not
merely means, but parts, of salvation. Those, there-
fore, who are elected to be saved are elected to be-
lieve, to repent, and to bring forth all the fruits of
holiness. To say that election is not inconsistent
with efforts to secure salvation is not enough : it is
the producing cause of those efforts. Without it
they never would be put forth ; with it they certainly
will. Did the elect not employ these efforts they
would defeat God's predestinating purpose. That
such is his purpose was incontestably proved by
Scripture testimony in the former part of this treatise.
(2.) Election is not inconsistent with the use of the
means of grace, for the plain reason that the use of
those means by the elect is included in the electing
4IO Calvhiism and Evangelical Arjninianisj7t,
decree. The means of grace are the Word of God,
the Sacraments and Prayer. These means the elect
are predestinated to employ, in order to the attain-
ment of salvation as the predestinated end.
Hozv the determining- grace of God, which is the
fruit of election, consists with the free, that is, spon-
taneous, action of the human will is, as has been
confessed, a mystery which cannot be explained.
But not only is the consistency a fact clearly asserted
by the Scriptures, but the denial of it would be the
denial of the possibility of salvation ; for did not
God's grace determine the will of the sinner towards
salvation it is absolutely certain that it would never
be so determined. And, further, to deny the fact is
to deny the possibility of heavenly confirmation in
holiness ; which is to deny what Arminians admit.
4. The remaining question is, whether the decree
of reprobation is inconsistent with the free moral
agency of the non-elect sinner.
(i.) That ground can only be taken upon the sup-
position, that as God in consequence of election irre-
sistibly produces the holiness of the elect, so in con-
sequence of reprobation he irresistibly produces the
sins of the reprobate. This position has already been
abundantly refuted. God is not the author of sin ;
nor does the Calvinistic doctrine affirm that he is.
On the contrary it solemnly maintains that he is not;
and teaches, that, in the first instance, man had ample
ability to refrain from sinning, and that he sinned by
a free and avoidable election of his own will. The
objection under consideration represents the Calvinist
as holding that man sinned at first and sins now be-
cause he was reprobated. This is an utter mistake.
Objection from Moral Agency of Man, 411
He holds that every man who is reprobated was rep-
robated because he sinned. It is palpably clear, there-
fore, that, as reprobation had nothing to do in bring-
ing about sin in the first instance, in that instance it
was simply impossible that it could have been incon-
sistent with the free moral agency of man. The ob-
jection amounts to this absurdity: man freely sinned
and was therefore reprobated; consequently, reproba-
tion so obstructed the free-agency of man that he
could not avoid sinning !
(2.) The decree of reprobation infuses no sinful
principle or disposition into men now. Their in-
ability to obey God, and their positive inclination to
disobey him, are the results of their own free and
unnecessitated choice, in the first instance, and their
indisposition to avail themselves of the offer of salva-
tion, and to put forth efforts to secure holiness, is
what they now spontaneously elect. They do not
desire holiness, and God is under no obligation to
change their wills by his grace. If it be said, that
they cannot choose holiness and salvation because
they are reprobated, it is suflficient to reply, first, that
they are reprobated because they did not choose holi-
ness, and do not choose it now, but chose sin, and
choose it now ; and, secondly, that they cannot
choose holiness because they will not, and reproba-
tion precisely coincides with their own wills. To
say that they do not will to be damned, is only to say
that they are not willing to experience the retributive
results of their own self-elected conduct. Of course,
they are not. No criminal is willing to be hanged.
But if he was willing to commit the crime for which
he is hanged, his hanging is of his owa getting.
412 Calvinism, and Evangelical Arminianism.
The sentence of the judge is not inconsistent with his
free-agency when he perpetrated the deed. God
gives no man the will to sin, but he justly inflicts the
doom of self-elected sin. Nor can his sentence of
reprobation be, in any sense, regarded as the cause of
that doom. It inflicts w^hat the sinner has freely
chosen. In fine, reprobation is no further incon-
sistent with the sinner's seekinof salvation than is his
own will. He does not wish to be holy, and repro-
bation keeps him where he desires to be. Reproba-
tion did not cause sin ; it justly punishes it.
PART II.
TRANSITIONAL OBSERVATIONS.
The affirmation or denial of the doctrine of Un-
conditional Election, the consideration of which has
now been closed, must stamp the complexion of one's
wdiole theology. It is one of the most controlling of
all doctrines, in the influence it exerts upon the
formation of a theological system. If it be admitted,
the whole provision of redemption is viewed as de-
signed to effect the certain salvation of the elect,
Christ as a Saviour appointed to save his people from
their sins, and the atonement as offered for them in
order to secure that result. Total depravity and total
inability are logically supposed ; for if unconditional
election be a fact, man is contemplated as utterly
unable to accomplish anything, even the least, in the
way of saving himself. The application of salvation,
at every step from the beginning to the end, accords
with the sovereign purpose of God, by his own power
to recover the sinner from his condition of despair.
The grace which saves is efficacious and invincible.
Synergism in order to regeneration becomes im-
possible. Faith in Christ is seen to be a pure gift of
grace. Justification is acknowledged to be due to
(413)
414 Cahnnism and Evangelical Arniinianism.
tlie gratuitous imputation of another's righteousness,
and as that righteousness is the perfect obedience to
the Law, rendered by the incarnate Son of God in
conformity with the terms of an eternal covenant
between God the Father and himself as the Head and
Representative of an elect seed given to him to be
redeemed, their justification in him involves an in-
defectible life. The same is seen to be true of adop-
tion, which forever fixes the regenerate children of
God in his paternal regards. The life of the saints
cannot be lost. Sanctification is viewed as the pro-
cess by which the Spirit makes the elect meet for the
heavenly inheritance won inalienably for them by
their glorious Surety and Substitute ; and their per-
severance in grace is the necessary result. In fine,
this doctrine reduces redemption to unity, as a
scheme originating in the mere good pleasure and
sovereign determination of God, supposing the de-
pendence of man's will upon God's will, making the
salvation of those whom God chooses as his people
absolutely certain, and necessitating the ascription of
the whole, undivided glory of the completed plan to
the free, efficacious and triumphant grace of God.
Nothing is projected which is not executed, nothing
begun whicli is not finished, nothing promised which
is not done. Conceived in the infinite intelligence
of God, the scheme is consummated by his infinite
power, and the results are commensurate with the
infinite glory of his name.
If, on the other hand, unconditional election is de-
nied, the genius of redemption becomes contingency.
The atonement was offered to make the salvation of
all men only possible; the human will has the power
Transitional Observations. 4I5
to accept or reject the tender of assisting grace and
decides the supren>e question of receiving or not re-
ceiving Christ as a Saviour; repentance and faith pre-
cede receneration-the sinner with the subsidiary help
of grac; arranges for liis own new creation and resur-
rection from tlie death of sin; the effects of justifica-
tion and adoption are conditioned upon the continued
choice of the human will to avail itself of them; and
the man may by his own election reach heaven ,n
order to God's electing him to that end, or although
having been regenerated, justified, adopted and, it
Ly be, entirely sanctified, he may at last all from
the threshold of glory into hopeless perdition A
,„ac.iiificent scheme of divine philanthropy, embrac-
ing''in its arms the whole world, professing to make
the salvation of all men possible, it miscarries in con-
sequence of its dependence upon the mutable state
and the contingent action of the human will, and m
its completion issues in the actual salvation of no
more souls than unconditional election proposes to
save Its poverty of result is as great as its richness
in promise: its achievement in inverse ratio to its
^ It'ls proposed now to go on and compare the
schemes of Calvinism and Evangelical Anninianism,
in re>'ard to the doctrine of Justification by Faith.
In order to a clear view of the case, the Calv.nistic
doctrine will first be stated, without an immediate
presentation of its proofs, and the Evangelical Ar-
miniau will be subjected to a somewhat particular: ex-
amination-examination, I say, for it is a question of
no mean difficulty what exactly it is. Such proofs
of the former doctrine as may be furnished will be
submitted during the discussion of the latter.
SECTION I.
THE CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
STATED.
The Calviiiistic doctrine may be stated under three
heads: first, the Ground of Justification; secondly, its
Constituent Elements, or Nature; thirdly, its human
Condition or Instrument.
I. The Ground of Justification, or, what is the
same, its Matter or Material Cause, is the vicarious
righteousness of Christ imputed to the belie.ver. This
is the obedience of Christ, as the appointed Substi-
tute of the sinner, to the precept and the penalty of
the Moral Law: what Paul denominates the righteous-
ness of God which is revealed from faith to faith. It
is fitly termed the righteousness of God, not only
because it was provided and accepted by God, but
because it was wrought out by God himself in the
person of Ins Incarnate Son. It is God's righteous-
ness because Ood produced it. This is judicially im-
puted by God the Father to the believing sinner, who
had no share at all in its conscious production. In
that sense, it is not his, but another's, righteousness
—justitia aliena. But as Christ was his Surety and
Representative and Christ's righteousness was impu-
ted to him, it becomes, in this sense, his righteous-
ness. It is his in law, before the divine tribunal; not
(416)
Calvinistic Doctrhte of Justification. 417
his as infused and constituting a subjective character,
but his as a formal investiture of his person. God,
tlierefore, is just in justifying him since, although
consciously and subjectively a sinner, he possesses in
Christ a perfect righteousness, such as the law de-
mands in order to justification, and such as satisfies
its claims. When the sinner by faith accepts Christ
with this righteousness, he has an adequate ground
of justification: consciously has it, so that he can
plead it before God.
2. The Constituent Elements of justification are,
first, the pardon, or non-imputation, of guilt ;
secondly, the acceptance of the sinner's person as
righteous, involving his investiture with a right and
title to eternal life. Taken generally, justification
may be said to consist of three things : first, the im-
putation of Christ's righteousness ; secondly, the
non-imputation of guilt, or pardon ; thirdly, the
acceptance of the sinner's person as righteous and
the bestowal upon him of a right and title to eternal
life. But taken strictly, justification is pardon and
the eternal acceptance of the sinner's person. The
ground and the constituent elements are not to be
confounded. It is not: justification is the non-im-
putation of guilt and the imputation of righteousness,
which would seem to be the natural antithesis ; but
first comes the imputed righteousness of Christ as the
ground, and then the elements or parts, — namely,
pardon, and acceptance with a title to indefectible
life.
3. The Condition on man's part, or the Instru-
ment, of justification is Faith, and faith alone. In
receiving Christ, as a justifying Saviour, it receives
27
4i8 Calvinism and Evangelical Anninianism.
and rests upon Christ's righteousness, as the ground of
justification. God imputes this righteousness and the
sinner embraces it by faith. In describing faith as the
condition of justification, an indispensable distinction
is to be noted. The only meritorious condition of jus-
tification was performed by Christ. As the Repre-
sentative of his people he undertook to furnish that
perfect obedience to the precept of the Law which,
under the Covenant of Works, was required of Adam
as the representative of his seed and which he failed
to render, and, in addition, to furnish a perfect obedi-
ence to the penalty of the violated law. Upon the
fulfilment of this condition the justification of his seed
was suspended. This condition he completely fulfilled
in his life and in his death, and thus meritoriously
secured justification for his seed. But in the applica-
tion of redemption to the sinner, he is required to ex-
ercise faith in Christ and his righteousness, in order
to his conscious union with Christ as a Federal Head,
and his actual justification. In this sense, faith is to
him the condition of his justification. It is simply an
i indispensable duty on his part — a conditio sine qua
non. He cannot be consciously and actually justified
without faith; but his faith has no particle of merit.
All merit is in Christ alone. Faith involves the abso-
lute renunciation of merit, and absolute reliance upon
the meritorious obedience of Christ. Faith, then, is
simply the instrument by which Christ and his right-
eousness are received in order to justification. It is
emptiness filled with Christ's fulness; impotence lying
down upon Christ's strength. It is no righteousness;
it is not a substitute for righteousness; it is not im-
puted as righteousness. It is counted to us simply as
Calvinistic Doch'inc of Justification. 419
the act which apprehends Christ's rigliteousness unto
justification. All it does is to take what God gives —
Christ and his righteousness: Christ as the justifying
Saviour and Christ's righteousness as the only justi-
fying righteousness.
In discharging this instrumental office faith is en-
tirely alone. It is followed, and in accordance with
the provisions of the covenant of grace it is inevit-
ably followed, by the other graces of the Spirit, and
by good, that is, holy works; but they do not co-operate
with it in the act by which Christ and his righteous-
ness are received in order to justification. They are
not concurring causes, but the certain results of jus-
tification. In a word, faith, while not the sole cause
for the act of the Spirit uniting the sinner to Christ
in regeneration is also a cause, is the sole instrumen-
tal zd^ws^^ on man's part of justification. Other graces,
the existence of which is conditioned by faith may
be superior to it in point of intrinsic excellence, love
for example; faith has none. All the excellence it
possesses is derived from its relation to Christ. Itself
it confesses to be nothing, Christ to be everything.
It is an exhausted receiver prepared by its very empti-
ness to be filled with the merit of Christ's righteous-
ness. Hence, it is precisely suited to be the instru-
ment, and the sole instrument, of justification. As
all human works whatsoever are excluded from it, jus-
tification is seen to be altogether of grace.
The statement of the doctrine in the \v'estminster
Shorter Catechism is the same with the foregoing,
except that the order of division is somewhat differ-
ent, the constituent elements being placed before the
ground. It is as follows :
420 Calvmis77i and Evangelical Arminianism,
"Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein
he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as right-
eous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ
imputed to us, and received by faith alone."
The statements in the other parts of the Westmin-
ster Standards are fuller. That of the Confession of
Faith is :
"Those whom God effectually calleth, he also
freely justifieth ; not by infusing righteousness into
them, but by pardoning their sins, and by account-
ing and accepting their persons as righteous : not for
anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for
Christ's sake alone : not by imputing faith itself, the
act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience
to them, as their righteousness ; but by imputing the
obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they
receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness
by faith ; which faith they have not of themselves, it
is the gift of God."
The Larger Catechism thus states the doctrine :
"Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sin-
ners, in which he pardoneth all their sin, accepteth
and accounteth their persons righteous in His sight;
not for anything wrought in them, or done by them,
but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction
of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by
faith alone."'
In his Lecture on Justification, in his Systematic
Theology, Dr. Charles Hodge makes a just and ad-
mirable statement of the doctrine.' " It is frequently
said," he remarks, "that justification consists in the
^ Vol. iii., p. i6i. Substantially the same is given by Owen, On
Justification^ Works, vol. v., pp. 173, 208.
Calvinistic Doctrine of Justification. 421
pardon of sin and the imputation of righteousness.
This mode of statement is commonly adopted by Lu-
theran theologians. This exhibition of the doctrine
is founded upon the sharp distinction made in the
' Form of Concord ' between the passive and active
obedience of Christ. To the former is referred the
remission of the penalty due to us for sin; to the
latter our title to eternal life. The Scriptures, how-
ever, do not make this distinction so prominent.
Our justification as a whole is sometimes referred to
the blood of Christ, and sometimes to his obedience.
This is intelligible, because the crowning act of his
obedience, and that without which all else had been
unavailing, was his laying down his life for us. Itv
is, perhaps, more correct to say that the righteousness 1
of Christ, including all he did and suffered in our /
stead, is imputed to the believer as the ground of his L
justification, and that the consequences of this impu-!
tation are, first, the remission of sin, and, secondly, |
the acceptance of the believer as righteous. And if ■
ricrhteous, then he is entitled to be so regarded and
treated."
The possibilities in regard to justification are thus
clearly presented by Dr. Thornwell in his^ very able
discussion of the validity of Romanist Baptism, when
considering the form of the sacrament or its relation
to the truths of the gospel: "To justify is to pro-
nounce righteous. A holy God cannot, of course,
declare that any one is righteous unless he is so.
There are no fictions of law in the tribunal of Heaven
—all its judgments are according to truth. A man
may be righteous because he has done righteousness,
and then he is justified by law; or he may be right-
422 Calvinism and Evangelical Armiiiianism.
eons because he has received rig-hteousness as a gift,
and then he is justified by grace. Pie may be right-
eons in himself, and this is the righteousness of works;
or he may be righteous in another, and this is the
righteousness of faith. Hence, to deny imputed right-
eousness is either to deny the possibility of justifica-
tion at all, or to make it consist in the deeds of the
law — both hypotheses involving a rejection of the
grace of the gospel. There are plainly but three pos-
sible suppositions in the case: either, there is no
righteousness in which a sinner is accepted, and justi-
fication is simply pardon; or, it must be the right-
eousness of God, without the law; or, the righteous-
ness of personal obedience; — it must either be none,
inherent, or imputed." He powerfully refutes the
suppositions of no righteousness and inherent right-
eousness, and establishes that of imputed.
Having given the Calvinistic statement of the doc-
trine, I proceed to compare with it the Evangelical
Arminian, under three corresponding heads.
I
SECTION II.
THE GROUND OF JUSTIFICATION,
The Groiuid or Meritorious Cause of justifica-
tion the Evangelical Arminian theologians assert to
be Christ's ''obedience unto death." This is a gen-
eral statement, and, so far as it is general, it is in
accord with the Calvinistic doctrine on the subject.
He who would take any other ground would descend
to the low level of the Pelagian and the Socinian.
All who pretend to orthodoxy must hold that the
atoning merit of God's incarnate Son is the ground of
the sinner's acceptance before the divine tribunal.
But when the general statement is analyzed into par-
ticulars, there are several points at which the differ-
ences between the Arminian and the Calvinistic sys-
tems come distinctly into view. Is the meritorious
obedience of Christ the Righteousness of God which
is revealed from faith to faith? Upon whom does
that obedience terminate for justification? What is
the result secured by it so far as probation is con-
cerned?— these questions are answered very differently
in the two systems.
I. The Calvinist affirms, and the Arminian denies,
that "the righteousness of God revealed from faith to
faith" is the vicarious obedience of Christ to the re-
(423)
424 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
quirements of the law. This phrase, "the righteous-
ness of God/' is of the most critical importance in the
apostle's discussion of justification. It is the hinge
upon which it turns. Why was not Paul ashamed of
the gospel of Christ? Because it is the power of God
unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew
first, and also to the Greek. Why is the gospel the
power of God unto salvation? Because therein is the
righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith. It is
precisely the fact that the gospel reveals the righteous-
ness of God to faith which constitutes it God's power
to pardon the sinner and receive him into his favor.
It is therefore of the utmost consequence to determine
the question, What is this righteousness of God? As
the Arminian denies that it is the vicarious obedience
of Christ to the law, it behooves him to answer that
question in some other way. Several answers have
been returned: first, that it is the intrinsic rectitude
of the divine character declared by the gospel; sec-
ondly, that it is the rectoral justice of the divine
administration; thirdly, that it is God's method of
justification; fourthly, that it is justifying faith; and
sometimes these are mixed together in a marvellous
and indescribable compound.
First^ Is it the intrinsic or essential righteousness
of God, declared by the gospel? In speaking formally
of this righteousness Dr. Pope says: "It may be
viewed objectively; and in this vSense is used to de-
scribe God's method of restoring man to a state of
conformity with his law: the righteousness of God, as
the originating and regulative and essential principle
of that method; exhibited in the work of Christ, the
meritorious ground of the sinner's acceptance, or in
The Ground of Justification. 425
Christ our Righteousness, and, as such, proclaimed
in the gospel, to which it gives a name. Viewed
subjectively, it is the righteousness of the believer
under two aspects: first, it is Justification by faith, or
the declaratory imputation of righteousness without
works; and then it is Justification by faith as working
through love and fulfilling the law; these however
constituting one and the same Righteousness of Faith
as the free gift of grace in Christ." Speaking fur-
ther of the "Righteousness of God" he says: "The
gospel is a revelation of God's righteous method of
constituting sinners righteous through the atonement
of Christ by faith: hence it is termed the Righteous-
ness of God. Viewed in relation to the propitiatory
sacrifice, it is a manifestation of God's essential right-
eousness in the remission of sins; view^ed in relation
to the Evangelical institute, it is the divine method
of justifying the ungodly." This is somewhat con-
fused and obscure, but two things are evidently set
forth: in the first place, the "righteousness of God"
is his essential righteousness manifested by the gos-
pel; and in the second place, the "righteousness of
God" is his method of justifying sinners. What Dr.
Pope has joined together logic will take leave to put
asunder, as the union was ab initio null and void.
The former of these positions will be considered first,
and separately from the latter, the consideration of
which is reserved to another place.
It needs not many words to show^ that the essential
righteousness, or, what is the same, the justice, of
God cannot be the righteousness of God which is re-
vealed to the faith of the guilty and despairing sinner
as the ground of his hope of acceptance. It is an at-
426 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
tribute of the divine nature, and exactly that attri-
bute which is the most dreadful to the sinner's con-
templation. It demands his punishment, visits its
withering curse upon his head, and raises the flames
of consuming wrath in the way of his approach to
God. Nor does it at all relieve the difficulty to say
that the sinner beholds the demands of this awful at-
tribute satisfied by the suffering obedience of the Son
of God, and from that circumstance derives the hope
of pardon and acceptance. This aggravates the diffi-
culty a thousand-fold. That the essential righteous-
ness of God could be appeased only by the blood and
anguish of the Cross presents it in a more fearful
light than when it was revealed amidst the darkness,
smoke and flame, the thunders and lightnings, the
trumpet blast and the voice of words of Sinai's quak-
ing mount. ''If they do these things in the green
tree, what shall be done in the dry?" If justice thus
dealt with God's beloved Son, wdiat will it do with the
conscious transgressor of his law? It cannot be the
intrinsic righteousness of God requiring such a sacri-
fice as that exhibited on the Cross which is revealed to
faith. It is revealed to despair. But that the right-
eousness produced by an incarnate God satisfying the
demands of God's essential righteousness which can-
not be remitted, relaxed or compromised, and satisfy-
ing them in the room of the sinner — that this right-
eousness is revealed in the gospel to the faith of the
guilty as a complete ground of acceptance with God, is
comprehensible. This it is which constitutes the
gospel God's power to pardon, this which makes it
tidings of great joy to those who sit in hopeless despair
at the smoking gate of hell. To reveal the justice of
The Ground of Jtistification. 4^7
God as a ground of hope to be apprehended by faith
is a form of expression unknown to the Scriptures.
It is what Christ has done and suffered in obeying the
law which is held up to faith as the ground of accept-
ance with God. And as the righteousness of God is
said to be revealed to faith, that righteousness must
be the same with the righteousness of Christ. It
certainly is not the distinguishing peculiarity of the
gospel tiiat it reveals the justice of God, or the grand
office of faith that it receives that justice. The right-
eousness of God, therefore, which is revealed to faith,
constituting the gospel the power of God unto salva-
tion to every one that believeth, cannot be the justice
of God. It is preposterous. Justice is rather God's
power unto damnation. It would be an inversion of
the o-race of the gospel, did the just live by faith in
the "justice of God. It is true that the Publican
pleaded with God for favor through atonement
0/daM, "but it is certain that he did not plead for jus-
tice ; he asked for mercy. Nor is the essential right-
eousness of God transmuted by atonement into
uiercv. It abides righteousness still. It was mercy
that provided the atonement, and it is mercy that ex-
tends pardon to the sinner, in consistency with the
clainv of unchanging righteousness fulfilled by the
obedience of the Saviour. Faith in that obedience,
as the righteousness provided, produced, and accepted
by God, is the required condition through which the
sinner's guilt is remitted, and his person admitted to
favor.
Secondly, It is sometimes contended that the
''righteousness of God" which is revealed to faith is
Ihe^'rectoral righteousness of the divine administra-
428 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism,
tion.* The rectoral righteousness of God, as the term
implies, is his justice in the administration of his
moral government. What is this but the attribute of
justice in energy ad extra? It enforces the divine law
which is a transcript, or formal expression, of his
moral perfections. The same course of argument,
consequently, which was employed in relation to the
intrinsic or essential righteousness of God will equally
apply to his rectoral righteousness. But in the case
of the latter it becomes evident that righteousness or
justice is the actual rendering to every one what is
his due. Were there no creature in existence, God
would render to himself what is due in accordance
with his intrinsic justice; and the same attribute
would secure to each Person of the Godhead what
properly belongs to him. There would be an infinite
reciprocity in the communication and the reception
of what is just to each. Towards the creatures who
are subjects of the moral government of God, the at-
tribute of justice, no longer confined to the relations
of the Godhead, is so exercised as to render to each
his due. This administration of justice, from the
nature of the case, must be perfect, for it is divine.
Each subject must receive exactly what is his due.
The righteous cannot be treated as sinful, nor the
sinner as righteous. Either the sinner must be pun-
ished in his own person, or, upon the supposition that
substitution is admitted, in the person of a substitute.
The rectoral righteousness, or distributive justice, of
^Watson says: " By the righteousness of God it is also plain,
that his rectoral justice in the admiuistration of pardon is meant,
which, of course, is not thought capable of imputation." Inst.y
vol. ii., p. 227, ff.
The Ground of Justification. 429
God must be completely satisfied, else the divine gov-
ernment is imperfectly administered.
Upon the Arminian scheme a serious difficulty here
occurs. It is upon that scheme conceded that the
principle of substitution has been introduced into the
moral government of God, and that the atonement
was in its nature vicarious. But, in the first place, it
is denied that Christ as the substitute assumed human
guilt, and that it was imputed to him by God, as
Judge. Dr. Raymond says: "The notion — held, to
be sure, by but a very few — that the sins of mankind,
or any portion of them, were imputed to Christ — that
is, that he took upon him our iniquities in such a
sense as that he was considered guilty, or that they
were accounted to him, or that he suffered the pun-
ishment due on account of those sins — in a word, the
idea that the Son of God died as a culprit, taking
the place of culprits and having their transgressions
imputed to him, accounted as his — we have charac-
terized as well-nigh bordering upon blasphemy; it is,
to say the least, a horrible thing to think of. The
term impute cannot, in any good sense, be applied in
this case. If, however, it be insisted upon that the
sins of mankind, or of the elect, were imputed to
Christ, the only sense admissible — and even in that
sense the formula is eminently awkward — is, that
consequences of man's sins were placed upon him; he
suffered because of sin, not at all that he was pun-
ished for sin, or suffered the penalty of sin." ^ Now,
it is demanded, if this were true, how, in accordance
with the rectoral righteousness of God, Christ could
have suffered and died. Of course he had no con-
^Syst. TheoL, vol. ii. p. 337.
430 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
scions guilt. Upon the supposition before us he had
no imputed guilt. As these are the only possible
ways in which one can be guilty, Christ had no guilt
at all — he was perfectly and in every sense innocent.
Did rectoral justice render to him his due, when as
innocent he suffered and died ? It may be said that
he freely consented to suffer and die. But divine jus-
tice could not have consented; and as the Son of God
was infinitely just, he could not have consented. To
say that men sometimes elect to suffer and die for
others does not in the least relieve the gigantic diffi-
culty; for no man has the right to suffer and die for
others unless it be his duty to do so. But the Son of
God was, in the first instance, under no obligation to
offer himself as a sacrifice for sinners. Further, to
say that Christ consented to suffer and die is to sup-
pose a covenant between God the Father and God the
Son. This, however, is denied by Arminians, who
admit only a covenant between God and men. The
difficulty is insuperable upon the Arminian scheme.
The rectoral righteousness of God was overslaughed
or thrown out of account in relation to the stupen-
dous fact of Christ's sufferings and death. And yet
it is contended that the rectoral rio'hteousness of God
is revealed, declared, manifested by the gospel through
the atonement of Christ ! The abettor of the Moral
Influence theory, which discards the distributive jus-
tice of God, may be consistent in maintaining that
the sufferings and death of Christ were a sacrifice
made by love with which justice had nothing to
do; but as the Arminian admits retributive justice
and yet denies that Christ was putatively guilty, he
is involved in flat self-contradiction. Either rectoral
The Groiuid of Justification. 431
justice had nothing to do with the sufferings and
death of Christ, or it had to do with them. If the
former, the Arminian doctrine under consideration —
namely, that the "righteousness of God" which is
revealed to faith is his rectoral righteousness mani-
fested by the gospel, is fatuously absurd. If the lat-
ter, the rectoral righteousness of God did not render
Christ his due as a perfectly innocent being. On
either horn the Arminian doctrine is impaled. In the
second place, if the imputation of the sinner's guilt
to Christ as his Substitute is denied, it follows that
his guilt remains upon himself. It is in no way re-
moved. But, it is contended that he is pardoned, if
he believes in Christ. How, then, in accordance with
rectoral righteousness, does he receive his due? Rec-
toral righteousness absolutely requires the punishment
of guilt. There is no principle clearer in the moral
government of God than the inseparable connection
of guilt and punishment. To say that he is pardoned
is to say that his guilt has not been punished. For,
if pardoned, he is not consciously punished; and if
Christ, as his Substitute, was not punished, his guilt
has in no sense been punished. The inseparable con-
nection betw^een guilt and punishment no longer ex-
ists; rectoral justice has been defrauded of its rights.
The sinner has not had his due rendered to him. If
Christ was not the Substitute of the sinner, and if his
death was not a penalty substituted for the death-
penalty due the sinner, but simply, as we have seen it
stated, a substitute for the penalty, then the penalty
demanded by rectoral justice has been dispensed with.
For it is as clear as day that the penalty has not been
endured at all: not by the sinner — he is pardoned; not
432 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism,
by Christ — he endured no penalty. The rectoral
righteousness of God may have its precept, but in this
case is shorn of its penalty: a mutilated righteous-
ness, surely! Yet the rectoral righteousness of God
is that which is revealed to faith in the gospel, seeing
the sinner is pardoned because it has been fulfilled in
the suffering and death of Christ!
Thirdly^ It is maintained that the "righteousness
of God" which is revealed from faith to faith, which
without the law is manifested, is God's method of
justification. Says Watson: "The phrase, the right-
eousness of God, in this [Rom. iii. 21, 22] and several
other passages in St. Paul's writings, obviously means
God's righteous method of justifying sinners through
the atonement of Christ, and, instrumentally, by
faith." ^ This is hardly a true construction of the
apostle's words.
In the first place, there would be no progress in
the statement: it would return upon itself. For it
w^ould amount to this: God's method of justification
ii through faith in his method of justification. The
question still presses. What is God's method of justifi-
cation? If one should ask by what means he might
reach a certain place, it would be a poor answer to
tell him. Take the road that leads to that place. The
sinner asks, What is God's method of justification?
or, what is the same thing. How shall I be justified?
It would be an equally poor answer to tell him. Ac-
cept by faith God's method of justification. But if
the answer should be, God has revealed the righteous-
ness of Christ to faith; accept that righteousness by
faith, and thou shalt be justified, it would be satis-
^Inst., vol. ii. p. 228.
The Ground of Justijicatiojt. 433
factory, and it is the only satisfactory answer that
can be given to the inqniry. To reply to it by say-
ing, The righteousness of God is his method of justi-
fying the sinner; accept that method by faith, and
thou shalt be justified, would be tautological and to
no purpose. Nothing would be explained.
In the second place, righteousness without works is
said to be imputed: ^'Even as David also describeth
the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputetli
righteousness without works." ^ But it is out of tjie
question to speak of a method of justification being
imputed. To this the Armlnian will reply by saying
that it is faith which is described as the righteous-
ness without works, and it is declared that faith is
imputed. Now we have just heard Watson saying
that God's righteousness is his method of justifying
the sinner. It seems then that there are two justify-
ing righteousnesses: God's method of justification,
and faith. This is utterly inadmissible. Either it is
God's method of justification which is the righteous-
ness without works that is imputed, and that is
absurd; or it is faith which is that righteousness, and
that will be disproved as the argument is developed,
jNIean while, it cannot be allowed to the Armiuian to
play fast and loose with the all-important terms yV/j//-
fying righteousness. He cannot in one breath, as
Watson does, signify by those terms God's rectoral
justice, God's method of justification, and the sinner's
faith. This is *' confusion worse confounded." The
righteousness which justifies cannot possibly be all
three, or any two, of them. If it be one of them, let
the Armiuian adhere to that one alone, and he will at
^ Rom. iv. 6.
28
434 Calviiiisiu and Evangelical Ar'minianism.
least be consistent with himself, however inconsistent
with Scripture.
In the third place, the righteousness which is of
God by faith is contrasted with the righteousness
which is one^s own. But there would be no meaning
in the comparison of one's personal righteousness
with God's method of justification. Let us hear Paul:
^' Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for
the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my
Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things,
and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
and be found in him, not having mine own righteous-
ness which is of the law, but that which is through the
faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by
faith.'' ^ By his own righteousness he certainly could
not have intended his own method of justification, but
his conscious, subjective obedience to the law; and
that he should have contrasted that with the obedi-
ence of Christ is intelligible. The former could con-
stitute no ground, the latter is a perfect ground, of
justification. The same comparison is instituted by
Paul in describing the zeal of his countr>anen which
was not according to knowledge. ^'For they being
ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to
establish their owm righteousness, have not submitted
themselves unto the righteousness of God."^ By
their own righteousness is meant their legal obedi-
ence, ' ^ for Moses describeth the righteousness which
is of the law. That the man which doeth those things
shall live by them."^ Their legal obedience is con-
trasted, not with the divine method of justification,
but with the obedience of Christ by w^hich he is the
* Phil. iii. 8, 9. ^j^om. x. 3. ^/<^., 5-
The Ground of Justifualion. 435
end of tlie law for righteousness to every one tliat
believeth. rM ■ ^ •
In the fourth place, our sin imputed to Christ is
contrasted with his righteousness imputed to us.
"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew
,10 sin; that we might be made the righteousness ot
God in him.'" Will it be said that Christ was made
God's method of condemnation for us, that we might
be made God's method of justification in him? That
^vould be the natural antithesis, if the righteousness
of God mean God's method of justification. It most
certainly cannot here mean faith, for it would be as-
serted that we are made faith in him ! Both these
constructions are so outrageous that they are rejected
bv Arminians themselves. Refusing to see the doc-
trines of imputed guilt and imputed righteousness
which are so plain on the face of the passage that a
blind man might perceive them, they say that Christ
was made a sin-offering for us. Well then, we were
made a righteousness-offering to God m him. That
would be the antithesis required. No; we are justi-
fied in him. Between a sin-offering for us and being
iustified in him, what conceivable comparison is
there' But let us not be hasty. Let us see whether
some one of the various Arminian interpretations of
the phrase "righteousness of God" will not meet the
demands of the case? Are we made the essential
ricrhteousness of God in Christ? Are we made the
rectoral righteousness of God in him ? Are we made
God's method of justification in him? Are we made
faith in him? Are we made all these in him? No,
answers the Arminian, we are justified in him. It
^2 Cor. V. 21.
436 Calvinism and Evaiigelical Arminianisni.
follows that the righteousness of God here spoken of
is neither God's essential righteousness, nor his rec-
toral righteousness, nor his method of justification,
nor faith, nor all these together. What, then, can it
be? The answer is, Justified and sanctified. So it
would appear that justified and sanctified' is another
of the senses in which the phrase righteousness of
God is employed.
A parallel passage is that in which Christ is de-
clared to be made of God to us — righteousness : "But
of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made
unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctifica-
tion, and redemption."^ It will scarcely be contended
that Christ is of God made unto us God's method of
justification. If it be asked, Who ever asserted such
an absurdity? it may be inquired in reph% How then
is Christ made righteousness to us? Is he made to
us God's essential riorhteousness, or his rectoral rio^ht-
eousness, or faith? Are these suppositions too ab-
surd to ascribe to the Arminian? If so, the question
recurs. How is Christ made righteousness to us?
The answer cannot be. Because he is our sanctifica-
tion, for the plain reason that in this passage right-
eousness is discriminated from sanctification. It will
hardly do to say that he is made to us wisdom, and
sanctification, and sanctification and redemption. A
first and a second blessing of sanctification are surely
not taught here. In what sense then is Christ made
righteousness to us? There is but one other answer.
It is that of the Calvinist : Christ's righteousness is
ours by imputation.
Another passage which cannot be harmonized with
^ See Clarke and Benson in loc. ^ i Cor. i. 30.
The Ground of Justification. 437
the view under consideration is the powerful one in
Jeremiah:' "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,
that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and
a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute
judgment and justice in the earth. In his days
Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely ;
and this is his name whereby he shall be called,
THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." There
can be no doubt that this statement refers to Christ.
How he could be called Jehovah, God's method of
justification made ours, it is impossible to see. Even
John Wesley, in his celebrated sermon on these
words, acknowledged that the doctrine of Christ's
imputed righteousness is, in a certain sense, taught
in them, and he defined that righteousness to be what
Christ did and suffered — what is usually termed his
active and passive obedience. But from Richard
Watson to the present day, the Evangelical Arminian
theology has gone beyond its leader and discarded the
phrase ijnputed righteousness of Christ. Be the inter-
pretation of these glorious words what it may, it most
assuredly cannot be : The Lord, our divine method
of justification! No more can it be our divine essen-
tial righteousness, or our divine rectoral righteous-
ness, or our faith.
Still another statement may be emphasized. It is
that in which Gabriel tells Daniel, "Seventy weeks
are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy
city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end
of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
to bring in everlasting righteousness."' Illustrious
testimonv to the obedience of Christ! Who can resist
^ Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. '^ i Dan, ix. 24.
43S Cal-jinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
the conviction that the righteousness here signalized
is the "righteousness of God" which Paul magnified
as the fundamental feature of a sinner's justification,
the revelation of which constituted the gospel the
power of God unto salvation, redeemed it from con-
tempt and rendered it an object of glorying in the
splendid capital of the Roman empire? And if this
be so, the everlasting righteousness, the bringing in
of which was foretold by an angelic prophet, cannot
be regarded as God's method of justification, unless it
be held that Jesus first brought in a method of justi-
fication which had been employed since the promise
of redemption was delivered to Adam and Bve, and
unless it be maintained that God will be everlastingly
employed in justifying sinners after the sentences of
the Final Judgment shall have forever sealed the
doom of men. An everlasting method of justification
is something hard to be understood, except it be by
those who regard anything more tolerable than im-
puted righteousness; but that an obedience of a
divine-human Substitute, brought in when he suffered
and died for his people on earth, should, according to
the purpose of God, have grounded their justification
from the beginning of sin, and will everlastingly con-
tinue to ground their justified standing in heaven, —
this is not only intelligible, but is the most glorious
doctrine of the glorious gospel of the blessed God.
The wonder is that any Protestant, that any believ-
ing sinner conscious of the sin that mingles even
with his faith, should ever question it. This, and
this alone, is the righteousness which finishes trans-
gression, makes an end of sins, and effects a recon-
ciliation for iniquity, that perpetuates the light of
The Ground of Jtistificaiion. 439
God's face and forever removes the shadow of con-
tinoencv from the bliss of heaven. So mnch for he
position' that the righteousness of God wuhout the
law, which is revealed from faith to fa.th is God s
method ofjustifying the sinner.
Fourthly, It is, with a remarkable versatdity of n-
terpretation, held that the righteousness of God is the
riohteousness of faith. Mr. Fletcher says of our
o;n ri<,4iteousness of faith": "We assert that it ,s
the righteousness of God.'" Dr. Ralston in pro-
fessedlv discussing the question, What is the nght-
eonsness of God? quotes with approval from a learned
commentator a passage in which this view is ex-
messed "In reference," he observes, to this
Urase, which occnrs in Rom. i. 17, Whitby remarks:
•This phrase, in St. Paul's style, doth always signify
the ri-hteousness of faith in Christ Jesns's dying or
sheddhighis blood for lis.'" And then Ralston
coes on to shift his terms, and curiously ital.cses^^the
scriptural words which annihilate this view. To
this " he continues, "we might add the testimony of
Paul himself, who, in Rom. iii. 22, gives precisely
the same comment upon the phrase in question.
'Even,' savs he, 'the righteousness of God, which is
hy faith off cms Christ. " " That is, the righteous-
ness of God is the righteousness of faith, and the
ricrhteonsness of faith is the righteousness which is
bv faith This is not Paul's confusion; it is Ur.
Ralston's He seemed unconscious that a righteous-
ness which inheres in faith and a righteousness which
comes by faith are not, ^n^^be^jh^^amejhmg.
^^Vorks, New York, 1849. vol. i. p. 3^3-
'^Elcm. Diviu., p. 402.
440 Calvinism and Evangelical Anninianisnt.
That the righteousness of God is the righteousness
that justifies not even the Arminians deny. That
faith is the righteousness that justifies, they vehe-
mently contend; for, was not ^Abraham's faith im-
puted to him for righteousness? Was he not right-
eous because he believed? His faith was the right-
eousness imputed to him. If this is not their
doctrine, language can convey no meaning. When
the relation of faith to justification comes in its place
in the general scheme of the argument to be ex-
amined, this doctrine will be more particularly con-
sidered. At present, it is relevant to prove that the
righteousness of faith, or faith as righteousness, can-
not be the righteousness of God. The appeal will
be taken directly to the Scriptures, and if they do
not show this, the plainest declarations are incapable
of being understood.
Rom. i. 17: "For therein is the righteousness of
God revealed from faith to faith." If faith be the
righteousness of God, the statement would be exactly
equivalent to this : the righteousness of God is re-
vealed from the righteousness of God to the right-
eousness of God ; or, faith is revealed from faith to
faith. This cannot be the apostle's statement. If it
be repudiated by the Arminian, it may be asked, For
what reason ? Is it urged that the righteousness of
God is different from the righteousness of faith ? The
difficulty is only changed, not removed, for the state-
ment would be: the righteousness of God is revealed
from the righteousness of faith to the righteousness
of faith. What meaning can be attached to such an
utterance? If the righteousness of God and the
righteousness of faith are different expressions for the
The Ground of Justification. 441
same thing the first difficulty remains: God's right-
eousness is certainly not revealed to itself; neither is
faith revealed to itself. So far as this cardinal state-
ment of the mode of justification is concerned, it is per-
fectly clear that faith is not the righteousness of God.
Rom. iii. 21, 22: ''But now the righteousness of
God without the law is manifested, being witnessed
by the law and the prophets ; even the righteousness
of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and
upon all them that believe." If faith be the right-
eousness of God, the statement here would be tanta-
mount to this: the righteousness of God which is by
the righteousness of God; or faith which is by faith.
This cannot be escaped except by a denial of the posi-
tion that faith is the righteousness of God — the very
affirmation resisted in these remarks. Moreover, what
sense can be extracted from the sentence: faith is unto
all and upon all them that believe? Yet, if faith be
the righteousness of God, that sentence is virtually
put into the apostle's mouth.
Phil. iii. 9: "And be found in him, not having
mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that
which is through the faith of Christ, the righteous-
ness which is of God by faith." The apostle contrasts
his own riehteousness which is of the law^ with an-
other righteousness which is tlirough faith. That
other rio-hteousness he describes as that which is of
God, and as imparted through faith or attained by
faith. Now, if faith be the righteousness of God, he
is represented as desiring to have that faith which is
through the faith of Christ, the faith which is of God
by faith. This construction of the solemn language
of Paul is so palpably inadmissible, that we are
442 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
obliged to reject the view that the righteousness of
God is faith, or, what is the same, that the righteous-
ness of God is the righteousness of faith — the right-
eousness which faith is reckoned to be.
The question whether faith, in relation to justifica-
tion, 'be any righteousness at all, legal or evangelical,
imputed or inherent, will be considered in another
place; but the passages of Scripture which have been
adduced incontestably prove that the righteousness
of God which is revealed from faith to faith, which is
through faith, which is by faith, and which is unto
all and upon all that believe, cannot be faith itself or
any righteousness involved in it.
It has now been shown that the righteousness of
God which is revealed to faith by the gospel is not
God^s intrinsic or essential righteousness, nor his rec-
toral righteousness by which he administers his moral
government, nor his method of justification, nor faith.
What, then, is it but the vicarious righteousness of
Christ — his obedience to the precept and the penalty
of the law in the sinner's stead, wrought out in his
life and in his death? The Arminian holds that the
ground of justification is the merit of Christ, but fails
to make the righteousness of Christ that righteous-
ness of God which faith apprehends as the ground of
acceptance. He is right in general, and wrong in
detail.
2. To whom is the merit of Christ, according to
the Arminian, made available as a ground of justifi-
cation? Who stand upon that ground? This ques-
tion is relevant because its answer throws some light
upon the whole Arminian conception of justification.
It behooves to be considered somewhere, and it may
The Ground of Justificatioii. 443
be well to take it up here. Anninian divines and
commentators generally concur in holding that the
guilt of Adam's sin is removed at birth from all men.
Tliey differ, it is true, in regard to the use of the
term guilt in connection with the first sin ; some con-
tending that all men are in some sense guilty in re-
spect to that sin, and therefore suffer the penal conse-
quences of it. As punishment necessarily supposes
guilt, men universally contracted guilt in Adam.
Others hold that men suffer the consequences of
Adam's sin, but that those consequences are not penal.
Raymond scoffs at the notion that men are guilty in
respect to Adam's sin in any proper sense. But al-
though the tendency of the Evangelical Arminian
theology seems to be now in the latter direction, it
can scarcely be regarded as fairly representing the
standard views of that theology as a whole. Be that
as it may, all concur in admitting, what only Pelagians
and Infidels deny, that men are in some way impli-
cated in the Fall of Adam. This connection with
the first sin is destroyed, in the case of all men, by
the effect of Christ's atonement. They are absolved
by the blood of Christ from the guilt (taken strictly
or loosely) of Adam's sin. They are, so far as their
connection with that sin is concerned, pardoned;
and as, according to the Arminian doctrine, justifica-
tion is exactly pardon, they are justified from that
guilt. Indeed, this is, in terms, contended for in the
expositioi>s of the apostle's comparison of Adam's
disobedience and Christ's righteousness in the fifth
chapter of Romans. We have, then, the justification
of all men at birth from the guilt of original sin.
Xow,
444 Cali'inism and Evangelical Ainninianism.
In the fiiTt place, this necessarily supposes two
justifications, separated by an interval of time. The
case of infants dying in infancy being left ont of ac-
connt, those who reach matnrity, and who believe on
Christ, were first jnstified at birth from the gnilt of
original sin, and afterwards, npon exercising faith,
are jnstified from the gnilt of their conscious, actual
sins.
In the second place, until the adult believes on
Christ, he is a partially justified man ; for he has
been, confessedly, justified from the guilt of Adam's
sin. How is this made consistent with the position
that justification is conditioned upon faith? If it be
replied that only justification from the guilt of actual
sins is so conditioned, it is demanded upon what
scriptural ground his justification is thus split into
parts — the one conditioned, the other unconditioned,
by faith?
In the third place, should the adult die without be-
lieving in Christ, he dies justified in part and unjus-
tified in part, partly pardoned and partly condemned;
pardoned for the guilt of original sin, condemned for
that of actual. But as actual sin springs from the
principle of original, he is condemned for a sin the
guilt of which supposes a sin which has been par-
doned. If not, the man must, like Adam, have from
innocence fallen into sin, since he must have been in-
nocent— free from guilt — in the interval between his
birth when the guilt of Adam's sin was removed and
his first voluntary, conscious, actual sin. This, how-
ever, is denied, and no wonder; for were it true there
would be as many falls from innocence into sin, like
that of the first man, as there have been, are, and
The GroH7td of Justification. 445
will be human beings born of ordinary generation.
But it must be so, if the premise be true that the
guilt of Adam's sin is non-imputed to every soul of
man, at his birth. He begins life innocent, for the
guilt of the first sin is pardoned, and no infant is ca-
pable of contracting guilt by conscious transgression.
If it be still contended that the man does not fall from
innocence when he commits actual sin, because the
principle of depravity is in him and occasions actual
sin, it is insisted upon that he must be innocent since
he is free from all guilt. And then the answer is
still further insufficient, for the reason that it is im-
possible to see how freedom from all guilt and the
principle of corruption can co-exist. If it be sup-
posed that the man loses the justification which was
secured for him by the atonement, it is replied that
the Arminian is not at liberty to make that supposi-
tion; for the precariousness of justification for which
he contends results from the contingent exercise of
faith. One who has been justified by faith may cease
to be in a justified state because he fails to exercise
faith: the condition gone, the thing conditioned goes
with it. But here is a justification which was not
conditioned upon faith, as no infant at birth can exer-
cise faith. It cannot, therefore, fail, since the uncer-
tain condition of continuance is non-existent. Given
without faith, why should it not continue without it?
The only relief from this difficulty would seem to
lie in a theory akin to that of Placseus, who held that
the imputation of Adam's guilt is mediated through
conscious sin. So, although that guilt has been
removed, ipso facto^ through the virtue of the atone-
ment, it may be incurred afresh by actual sin. But
446 Calvinisi7i and Evangelical Arminianis)n.
Placseus did not hold that Adam's sin was in any
sense directly entailed npon his posterity, and conse-
quently could not have maintained that it is removed
by virtue of the atonement from all men at birth.
The Arminian has to account for the re-incurring of
a cancelled obligation. If he decline that office, the
difficulty returns of two justifications, with the con-
sequences by which that view is embarrassed.
The Arminian doctrine broadens the application of
the ground of justification beyond the warrant of
Scripture. It places in part upon it the whole race
of man, many of whom never hear of its existence;
while many others of them, who know of it through
the gospel, fail to receive any benefit from it, but are
swept away from it by the tempestuous floods of sin.
The Calvinistic doctrine of a virtual justification
through the representation of his people by Christ,
and an actual, conscious justification through faith,
is not liable to such objections. It is self-consistent,
walking in a narrow way, indeed, but one wdiich
surely leads to life. No one is represented as being
only in part on the Rock of Ages, and every one who
was ever wholly upon it remains there, unshaken by
the vicissitudes of life and the stormy agitations of
death and judgment.
3. In connection with the point last noticed, of the
extent to which the ground or meritorious cause of
justification is applied, the question occurs, What is
its result so far as probation is concerned? It is one
of momentous importance. As the subject of proba-
tion is rarely handled with anything like thorough-
ness in systems of divinity, and as it deserves to be
looked at in all its bearings, let us contemplate it,
The Ground of Jiistificalion. 447
first, in relation to the condition of man nnder the
scheme of natnral religion, and secondly, in respect
to his state as afFected by redemption.
Fh'si^ What was the natnre of man's probation, so
far as his relation to Adam was concerned? To this
qnestion Evangelical Arminian theologians give no
consistent answer. It were idle to attempt the formn-
lation of any doctrine npon this point from their con-
fused and heterogeneous utterances. Some citations
will be furnished, which will serve to put this allega-
tion beyond doubt. Says Wesley: "In Adam ^//rt'/^</,
all human kind, all the children of men who were
then in Adam's loins. The natural consequence of
this is, that every one descended from him comes
into the world spiritually dead, dead to God, wholly
dead in sin : entirely void of the life of God, void of
the image of God, of all that righteons7iess and holi-
ness wherein Adam was created." ' "Unless in x^dam
all had died, being in the loins of their first parent,
every descendant of Adam, every child of man, must
have personally answered for himself toGod. " ^ "But
it is the covenant oi grace ^ which God through Christ
hath established with men in all ages (as well before
and under the Jewish dispensation, as since God was
manifest in the flesh), which St. Paul here opposes to
the covenant of works made with Adam, while in
paradise."^ "One thing more was indispensably re-
quired by the righteousness of the law, namely, that
this universal obedience, this perfect holiness both of
heart and life, should be perfectly uninterrupted also,
^ Senn. on the New Birth.
^Sei-m. on God's Love to Fallen Man.
^Serni. on the Righteousness of Faith.
448 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
should continue without any intermission, from the
moment when God created man, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life, until the days of his
trial should be ended, and he should be confirmed in
life everlasting."' "The covenant of works required
of Adam and all his children, to ' pay the price them-
selves' in consideration of which, they were to receive
all the future blessings of God."' The fact may be
noticed, although it is not pertinent to the present
purpose that it should be dwelt upon, that Wesley did
not hold the doctrine of strict federal representation.
All men were in Adam's loins. He seminally con-
tained them, and because of this fact represented
them. The legal results of his sin are derived to
them through parental propagation. How this con-
sists with a legal probation of the race in him, it is
impossible to see. Yet, he taught a covenant of
works in some sense, and meant, it appears, to teach
the probation of the race in Adam. They had a
"trial" in him. Otherwise each would have had to
answer for himself
In like manner Watson intended, it would seem, to
assert a probation of the race in the first man, for he
contends that they suffer penally for his sin: "the
full penalty of Adam's offence passed upon his pos-
terity."* But how a proper probation is made out,
let the following utterances evince. Speaking of the
effect of the "federal connection between Adam and
his descendants" upon the latter, he says : " By iin-
vicdiate imputation is meant that x\dam's sin is ac-
counted ours in the sight of God, by virtue of our
^Serm. on the Righteous7iess of Faith.
^ Theol. hist., vol. ii. p. 67.
The Ground of Justification. 449
federal relation. To support the latter notion, vari-
ous illustrative phrases have been used: as, that Adam
and his posterity constitute one moral person^ and
that the whole human race was in him, its head, con-
senting to his act, etc. This is so little agreeable to
that distinct agency which enters into the very notion
of an accountable being, that it cannot be maintained,
and it destroys the sound distinction between original
and actual sin.'' ^ "It is an easy and plausible thing
to say, in the usual loose and general manner of stat-
ing the sublapsarian doctrine, that the whole race
having fallen in Adam, and become justly liable to
eternal death, God might, without any impeachment
of his justice, in the exercise of his sovereign grace,
appoint some to life and salvation by Christ, and leave
the others to their deserved punishment. But this is
a false view of the case, built upon the false assump-
tion that the whole race were personally and individ-
ually, in consequence of Adam's fall, absolutely liable
to eternal death. That very fact, which is the foun-
dation of the whole scheme, is easy to be refuted on
the clearest authority of Scripture; while not a pass-
age can be adduced, we may boldly affirm, which
sanctions any such doctrine." ' "What then becomes
of the premises in the sublapsarian theory which we
have been examining, that in Adam all men are abso-
lutely condemned to eternal death? Had Christ not
undertaken human redemption, we have no proof, no
indication in Scripture, that for Adam's sin any but
the actually guilty pair would have been doomed to
this condemnation; and though now the race having
become actually existent, is for this sin, and for the
^ Thcol. Inst., vol. ii. p. 53. ^ Ibid., pp. 394, 395.
29
450 Calvinism and Evangelical A^-minianism.
demonstration of God's hatred of sin in general, in-
volved, through a federal relation and by an imputa-
tion of Adam's sin, in the effects above mentioned;
yet a universal remedy is provided." ' All this is
very curious. Men are condemned to death, spiritual,
temporal and eternal, for Adam's sin; but he was not
strictly speaking their representative, they were not
one with him in law^ and they would not have been
condemned to death had it not been for the provision
of redemption in Christ!^ It were folly to denomi-
nate this a proper probation. The whole case is un-
intelligible.
The views of Fletcher seemed to have been in
accord with those of Wesley and Watson with, as
usual, some peculiar refinements of his own, as the
following quotation will show: "We were not less in
Adam's loins when God gave his Son to Adam in the
grand original Gospel promise, than when Eve jDre-
vailed upon him to eat of the forbidden fruit. As all
in him were included in the covenant of perfect
obedience before the Fall, so all in him were likewise
interested in the covenant of grace and mercy after
the Fall. And we have full as much reason to believe,
that some of Adam's children never fell with him
from a state of probation, according to the old cov-
enant, as to suppose that some of them never rose
with him to a state of probation, upon the terms of
the new covenant, which stands upon better promises.
"Thus, if we all received an unspeakable injury, by
being seminally in Adam when he fell, according to
* Theol. List., vol. ii. p. 400.
* This remarkable theory is subjected to a particular examination
in the discussion on election.
The Ground of Justification. 451
the first covenant, we all received also an nnspeakable
blessing by being in his loins when God spiritnally
raised him np, and placed him npon Gospel ground.
Nay,*the blessing which we have in Christ is far
superior to the curse which Adam entailed upon us:
we stand our trial upon much more advantageous
terms than Adam did in paradise.'"
Strict legal representation, the only competent
ground of probation proper, is here discarded, and
only such probation is asserted as may be collected
from the notion of a seminal union with Adam— that
is, from his parental headship viewed as representa-
tive. The hypothesis that we were also seminally
contained in Adam as a restored, believing sinner, is
something extraordinary. Of course, if according to
the law of propagation all were condemned and died
in Adam sinning, it would follow that according to
the same law all are justified and live in Adam be-
lieving. What then of Cain and his followers? and
what need of union to Christ? Is he a third Adam,
and believing Adam the second, seeing we must have
been in somebody's loins, as redeemed, and we cer-
tainly are not in Christ's? Christ redeemed Adam,
in order that a justified race might be generatively
propagated from him.
Under the head of "The Original Probation,"
Pope, speaking of Adam's relation to his posterity,
says: "He represented his posterity; but not as a
mediator between God and them; and therefore the
ordinance of probation had not the nature of a cov-
enant. The so-called C0VP:NANT OF WORKS
has no place in the history of paradise." ' ''Qngi_nal
1 Works, New York, 1849, vol. i, p. 284.
"^Comp. Chris. TheoL, vol. ii, p. 13.
452 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
sin," he remarks, "is the sin of Adam's descendants
as under a covenant of grace. What it would other-
wise have been we can never know: there would then
have existed no federal union of mankind."' Treat-
ing of Mediate and Immediate Imputation he makes
this sweeping assertion, in which Wesley's view is
consigned to the class of unscriptural hypotheses:
"Such speculations as these stand or fall with the
general principle of a specific covenant wnth Adam as
representing his posterity, a covenant of which the
Scripture does not speak. There is but one Cov-
enant, and of that Christ is the jMediator." -^
The following passages from Raymond will show
how the Evangelical Arminian theology is running
down at the heel. "We feel no partiality for the
idea of federal headship or representation; but with
proper explanation, it may be admitted; it is at best
but a figurative illustration, and is of doubtful ser-
vice. Adam was the head of his race, and repre-
sented his race, just as a father is the head and repre-
sentative of his family. Consequences of the charac-
ter and conduct of parents naturally accrue to their
children. . . . But can any man say that these
disadvantages are piinishmenls? Does God consider
the children guilty of their parent's sins? Certainly
not."^ "Adam was not the race, nor did he represent
the race in such a sense that they could be justly
doomed to eternal death for his sin."* "It is not
true that the race, as individuals, stood their proba-
tion in Adam."^ This is followed by an attempt to
^Comp. Chris. TheoL, vol. ii. pp. 60, 61. '^ Ibid., p. 78.
^Syst. Theology, vol. ii, pp. 109, no. *Ibid., p. 131.
^Ibid., p. 136.
The Ground of Justification. 453
prove that had Adam stood, there is no evidence to
show that the probation of the race would have ter-
minated happily in him.
Whedon's views may be gathered from the following
paragraphs : "If for the fall of Adam, or any reason
whatever, the whole human race is born unable to do
good, it cannot, then, be damned for not doing good."*
"On Adam's sin, moral subversion and mortality ob-
tained full sway over him, and so of all his descend-
ants by the law of propagation: the law by which
throughout the entire generative kingdoms, whether
vegetable, animal, or human, like nature begets like
nature, bodily, mental, and moral. ""^ "How does
the apostle mean that all have sinned? Theologians
have replied, All have sinned in Adam. But no
such phrase as sinned in Adajn occurs in Scripture.
The phrase In Adam all die does occur. This does
not mean, however, that any man's body or person
was physically, materially or morally present, or so
incorporated in the body of Adam as to expire with
him when he expired. No more was any person
present in x\dam to eat the forbidden fruit when he
ate. Every man dies conceptually in the first mortal
man, just as every lion dies in the first mortal lion ;
that is, by being subjected to death by the law of
likeness to the primal progenitor. The first lion was
the representative lion, in whose likeness every de-
scended lion would roar, devour, and die ; and so in
him the whole lion race die."^ "The clause all /lave
sinned^ therefore, means just the saxwe as all sin — thus
stating a fact which (allowing for volitional freedom)
is as uniform as a law of nature . . . Not because
Comm. ou Romans, ch. ii. ^ Ibid., ch. v.
454 Calvijiism and Evangelical Armiiiianism.
they literally sinned in Adam ; not because Adam's
personal sin is imputed to them, but because such is
their nature that in this scene of probation, hemmed
in with temptations on all sides, sooner or later they
will sin ; and o-f whatever act a being is the normal,
if not absolutely universal, performer, of that he is
normally called the doer; if of j/;/, then a sinner.'*''^
First, It is obvious from these views of prominent
theologians that no consistent doctrine in regard to a
probation of the race in Adam can be collected from
them. They are incapable of being reduced to sys-
tematic shape. It is useless to enlarge upon this
point : the foregoing extracts speak for themselves.
Wesley, Watson and Fletcher allow some sort of cove-
nant with Adam, and a corresponding probation of
his descendants in him. Pope explicitly denies a
covenant. Raymond as expressly rejects a probation
of men in Adam, and Whedon affirms that there is
no proof from Scripture that men sinned in Adam.
Secondly, Wesley contended that perfect obedience
was required of Adam "until the days of his trial
should be ended, and he should be confirmed in life
everlasting." This is a curious statement, coming
from him, and one difficult of comprehension. Did
he intend to include in it Adam's descendants? If
he did not, he denied what he admitted — their proba-
tion in him. If he did, there are four suppositions
possible. First, did he mean by the end of the trial
the close of Adam's life? But had he stood, there
would have been no close of his life. Secondly, did
he mean the end of a certain, definite period during
Adam's life? If he did, he affirmed the Calvinistic
^ Coram, on Romans, ch. v. * Ibid.
The Ground of Jiistificatioit, 455
doctrine and asserted the theory of strict legal repre-
sentation. But how could he do that, and at the
same time hold to a losable justification? Or, how-
could such a justification consist with "confirmation
in everlasting life"? Thirdly, did he mean by the
end of the trial, the close of each man's life? That
would be tantamount to denying that each man, un-
der the first covenant, had a probation in Adam, a
thing which he admitted. Every man would have
stood on his own foot. Besides, had Adam stood in
integrity, how could any man have died ? If in Adam
as sinning they died, in Adam as not sinning they
w^ould have lived. Fourthly, did he mean by the end
of the trial the close of the whole Earthly history of
Adam and his posterity, supposed to continue in holi-
ness? That would be attended with the same diffi-
culties as the supposition of the trial's terminating at
the expiration of a certain, definite period. More-
over, how can it be maintained that there would have
been an end of the earthly history of Adam and his
descendants, had they remained holy? What proof
is there for it? The expression sounds well in a Cal-
vinist's ear, but what does it mean in an Arminian's
mouth ?
Thirdly, A probation supposed to terminate in an
"amissible" — a losable justification would have been
no real probation at all. For, according to the sup-
position, the probation would have been both finished
and not finished : finished by justification ; not fin-
ished, since justification might have been lost. And
further, had Adam secured justification for his pos-
terity, they might have subsequently lost it, for if
they may lose the justification merited by Christ,
456 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.
they surely may have forfeited that won by Adam,
If so, what probation would have remained to the
race, but one finished and yet unfinished, which is a
contradiction in terms ?
Fourthly, A seminal union of Adam and his pos-
terity, involving such a representative feature as that
union would carry with it, could have been no proper
ground for a legal probation. Adam would have dif-
fered from ordinary parents simply by the circum-
stance of his being the first father of mankind; and
no one talks of children having a strict, legal proba-
tion in their parents. The former are not adjudged
to temporal death for the crimes of the latter, much
less to eternal death. Those writers, therefore, who
hold merely to the seminal relation, and deny proba-
tion, are consistent. According to the most accom-
plished Evangelical Arminian theologians of recent
times, the seminal union will not account for legal
probation and its tremendous results. The fact is
worthy of attention. Asserting the one, they deny
the other.
Fifthly, The defect common to all the writers who
have been cited, is that their doctrine falls short in
not affirming a federal headship of Adam involving
strict legal representation, superadded by divine ap-
pointment to a headship naturally belonging to the
parental relation, and implying only such a federal
and representative element as necessarily attaches to
that relation. It is true that some admit a covenant,
but it was not such a covenant as constituted a com-
petent ground for the legal probation of the race. As
the Calvinistic view of probation is denied, and as it
stands or falls with the doctrine of the covenant of
The Ground of Justification. 457
works, it behooves that proof be furnished of the fact
that such a covenant existed.
First, The most prominent and conchisive proof is
derived from the fifth chapter of Romans. It estab-
h'shes an analogy between Christ and Adam. If
Christ was a representative, so must have been Adam.
The scriptural proofs in favor of Christ's representa-
tive character were presented in the foregoing discus-
sion of the Objections to Election. They will not,
therefore, be stated here. If it be denied that Adam
was a representative, the only point at which the
analogy holds between him and Christ is obliterated.
Adam, although not an instituted type, was a real
figure, of Christ. That is, although he was not made
a representative for the purpose of typifying Christ as
a representative, as Aaron was constituted a priest
in order to typify the sacerdotal function of Christ,
yet, in consequence of the unity of plan characteriz-
ing God's moral government of the human race, which
from the beginning proceeded upon the principle of
federal representation, Adam as a representative was
an analogue of Christ. He was only a type of Christ
by reason of the fact that he was a representative of
his seed, as Christ is of his. In this respect there is
a parallelism between the first and second Adam, in
others an antithesis. The passage affords a brief, but
pregnant, proof of the representative character of
Adam.
But, if Adam were a representative, it is clear that
he must have acted under a covenant. In what other
way could he have been constituted a representative
of his posterity? His concreated relation to a naked
dispensation of law could not account for the fact.
45S Calvinisjii and Evangelical Armmianism.
He would have been obliged to answer for himself
alone, so far as the judicial results — the reward or
punishment — of his conduct were concerned. It may
be urged that as God made him by creation a parental
head, there was no need of the superaddition of cove-
nant headship to constitute him a representative.
This point has already been elaborately argued, but
it is briefly replied here :
In the first place, he was not made simply a paren-
tal head. The proof is plain. Christ was not simply
a parental head, and as Adam was a type of Christ he
could not have been. As Christ certainly was not
carnally a parental head, there is no analogy in that
regard ; and as he is spiritually a parental head by a
supernatural and sovereign influence, it is hard to see
how the likeness obtains in that respect. It remains
that the analogy is grounded in a federal and repre-
sentative headship different from parental.
In the second place, if Adam had stood and been
justified as a mere parental head, and not as a federal
and representative head, his justification would not
have secured the justification of his seed ; for the
righteousness of a parent cannot ensure the standing
in righteousness of his children. According to the
supposition that Adam was not a federal head and
legal representative appointed under a constitution
different from the act by which he was created a
parent, each one of his posterity would have stood
upon his own foot in law, and consequently the stand-
ing of each would have been contingent upon his
own personal, conscious obedience. Arminians them-
selves acknowledge the forensic character of justifica-
tion. The same must be true of condemnation. The
The Ground of Jicstification. 459
propagative channel alone will not account for the
derivation of either. A good child is not punished
for his father's crimes ; nor is a bad child rewarded
for his father's virtues. And as it is a fact that a
child of good dispositions, humanly speaking, is
sometimes born of a bad parent, and a child of bad
dispositions of a good parent, it is evident that the
seminal principle is not adequate to meet the de-
mands of the case. The universal and undeniable
fact of native depravity clearly proves guilt in the
progenitor of the race, descending, in consequence of
a representative and not a merely parental headship,
to those who were his legal constituents, and not
merely the fruit of his loins.
But if it be admitted, it may be suggested, that
Adam was a representative as well as Christ, it is not
proved that his posterity would have been justified in
him, on the supposition that he had stood and been
justified. It is proved, because:
There could have been no meaning in his being
constituted a Representative of his seed, had not the
possible justification of them through his acts been a
consequence of the appointment.
Further, his condemnation involved the condemna-
tion of his seed. Pai'i rati07ie^ his justification would
have involved theirs.
Again, the obedience of the second Adam secured
the justification of his seed. The principle is the
same in both cases. •
The same view is presented, though not so ex-
pressly, in the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians
and the second chapter of Hebrews. The death of
all in Adam and the life of all in Christ depend upon
460 Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianisni.
the operation of the same principle. Now it is cer-
tain that men do not live becanse they were seminally
contained in Christ. To say that they were in his
loins were to blaspheme. Neither, then, the analogy
holding, do men die becanse of a seminal connection
with x\dam. x\ federal and representative nnion is
necessitated, and that snpposes a covenant originating
in the constitutive and appointing prerogative of God.
It is nothing short of an impeachment of the moral
government of God to assert that men die morally
and spiritually, or die at all, in Adam, just as all lions
die in the first mortal lion — that the seminal relation
accounts for both classes of facts. The Scriptures
explicitly declare, in regard to man, that "the w^ages
of sin is death," that "by one man sin entered into
the world, and death by sin." Infants die before they
consciously sin. Their death is the wages of sin. Of
what sin ? Not their own conscious sin, unless they
die in anticipation of it, as if a man were hanged for
prospective murder. Of another's sin, therefore.
How? As young lions die because the old lion died?
Is the death of young lions the wages of an old lion's
sin? See, what the seminal principle of Wesley,
Watson and Fletcher comes to in the hands of Whe-
don ! No, death is a judicial infliction in consequence
of the sin of a legal representative acting under a
legal covenant, and its penal element can only be re-
moved in consequence of the obedience of another
and a better Representative under another and a bet-
ter covenant.
The second chapter of Hebrews proves the neces-
sity of the incarnation of the Son of God, of a com-
munity of nature between him and his brethren, the
The GroiDid of Jitstijication. 461
seed of Abraham. Why this necessity? That he
might be of the same blood with his seed, inasmuch
as the first Adam was of the same blood with his.
The principle of representation is probably broad
enough to admit of an application in every case in
which the subjects of government may be logically
collected into unity; but Christ as the representative
of his human seed behooved to be made like unto
them by taking their nature, because the first repre-
sentative of men, Adam, sustained that relation to
them. The representative must, in this instance, par-
take of the nature of the represented because of the
Adamic law. This settles the question that both
Christ and Adam were representatives. The law of
representation proceeding by the tie of race controlled
both cases. This evinces the difference between a
merely seminal union, and a representative union.
Christ was not a seminal head of his people, as was
the first Adam of his posterity. In that respect
therefore the second Adam did not conform to the
law of the first. It was in the fact that they were
representatives that a common principle obtained.
Now as Christ acted as a representative under the
economy of a covenant, so likewise must Adam.
Secondly, There could have been no justification
without a covenant. Had no covenant existed limit-
ing the time of probation, the demand of the naked
law would forever have been. Do and live; and the
promise. As long as you do, you shall live. Proba-
tion would necessarily have been everlasting, unless
closed by sin, and justification involving confirmation
in holiness and ha])piness unattainable. But
In the first place, God promised justification to
462 Calvinism and Evangelical Anninianism.
Adam as the reward of obedience, because he prom-
ised him life as that reward. It is scarcely snpposa-
ble that God promised not to kill Adam, or not to
allow him to die, as long as he continued obedient.
It would have been a necessar}' inference from the
character of God and of man's relation to him, that
he would preserve the existence of an obedient and
loving subject. If any conclusion, however, could be
collected from the threatening, In the day thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die, bearing the nature of a
promise it would simply be a promise of exemption
from death, or the continuance of existence. This is
not the highest and most significant sense in which
the Scriptures employ the term life^ as might be
evinced by numerous passages. In connection with
the enjoyment of God's favor it is used to signify
perpetual, indefectible w^ell-being: it is life everlast-
ing. That God promised this kind of life to Adam
in the event of his continuing obedient during the
time of probation assigned him, is conclusively shown
by the consideration that as, according to the Scrip-
tures, there was an analogy betw^een Christ and
Adam, the life promised to Christ on condition of
obedience must have been the same in kind, however
different in degree of fulness, with that which was
promised to Adam in case he stood his trial. But
the life promised to Christ and in him to his seed was
everlasting life. That supposes justification. As,
therefore, God promised justification to Adam, a cov-
enant is proved: since without a covenant justifica-
tion would have been impossible.
In the second place, the analogy between Christ
and Adam directly proves that justification was the
The Ground of Justification. 463
reward promised to Adam, As it certainly was
promised to Christ, so must it have been to Adam.
Otherwise there is no analogy between the two. A
covenant with Adam is thus clearly proved to have
existed.
It has thus been shown that all men had a legal
probation in Adam as their legal representative under
the covenant of works. As their representative
failed in standing the trial, they all failed in him,
and are, therefore, no longer in a state of legal proba-
tion. There is no possibility of their obeying the
law in order to justification. How, in themselves
and by their own efforts, can the condemned be justi-
fied? "Therefore, by the deeds of the law shall no
flesh be justified ; for by the law is the knowledge of
sin."
Secondly^ The question next arises, What is the
probationary relation which men now sustain to the
government of God? Upon this subject the Calvin-
istic doctrine is : that by virtue of a covenant between
God the Father and God the Son, the Son was ap-
pointed the Federal Head and Legal Representative
of those sovereignly elected by the Father to be re-
deemed ; that the Son accepted the commission, be-
came incarnate, and undertaking to fulfil the covenant
of works which Adam had failed to keep, as well as
to satisfy the justice of God for its infraction, per-
fectly obeyed the law in its precept and its penalty, in
his life and in his death, in the place of his seed, and
rose again for their justification ; and that thus their
legal probation was finished in him : they, as sinners,
being convinced of sin by the Holy Spirit, and by
him persuaded and enabled to renounce all legal
464 Calviiiism and Evangelical Anninianism.
efforts to secure acceptance with God, and simply to
believe in Jesus Christ as the condition of their actual
justification.
There is also, in consequence of the indiscriminate
offer of salvation to all who hear the gospel, what
iiia\- be termed an evangelical probation. Those to
whom the sound of the gospel comes are tested in re-
gard to their willingness to embrace Christ, and rest
upon his righteousness alone for salvation. In this
sort of jDrobation there is no legal element. It is, in-
deed, not probation proper. It is evident tliat it is
confined to those who are in contact with the gospel
and does not, therefore, refer to the case of the
heathen.
There is, in addition, a subordinate species of pro-
bation to which those who are believers in Christ and
adopted children of God are subjected, under the ope-
ration of the rule which is exercised over God's own
house in accordance with the principle of fatherly
justice. They are proved or tested with reference to
their faithfulness, and correspondingly with the de-
gree of it which they exhibit will that justice mete
out to them the rewards won by Christ, and assign
them their stations in the kingdom of glory. Salva-
tion— the salvation of Paul and the penitent thief — is
entirely of grace, the rewards of the heav^enly state
are all purchased by the merit of Christ alone; but